Skip to main content
Internet Archive's 25th Anniversary Logo

Full text of "A defence of the sincere and true translations of the Holy Scriptures into the English tongue,against the cavils of Gregory Martin"

See other formats

W, I 

fS s 



^or tt)e l^ut)ltcatton of tfje ^!Mov'k& of ti)e dFatf)rr0 
and asavlv SlSHritct of tf)t liefortneti 








^6e Jlatfe^t Sotiet|), 










It is a circumstance wliich has frequently been re- 
marked, that those authors who by their writings have 
greatly benefitted mankind, have left to posterity few 
particulars from which may be gathered the events of 
their own life. The course of a scholar rarely exhibits 
any incidents or features of variety. Living more with 
past generations than his own, holding converse with his 
books in preference to the world without, the daily tenor 
of his habits and occupations continues the same. We must 
be contented, therefore, to dwell with him in his seclusion, 
and to read the expression of his recorded thoughts, rather 
than expect to have to trace his history in events of 
more stirring interest. Such is the case with respect to 
the subject of the present memoir. The few particulars 
that have been preserved of the biography of William 
Fulke, may be briefly stated. 

Of his parentage nothing is known. Bishop Wren', 
who took some trouble to glean notices of liis life, has 
not even left us the date of liis bu"th : but we are inci- 
dentally informed by himself that he was born before the 
year 1538. (See p. 41, and compare the statement there 
with the notice in p. ix. of No. 17 of his works.) It is 

[} Bishop Wren's collections have been used for a similar pur- 
pose by Tanner. (Historical Account of the Masters of Pembroke 
Hall. Compiled by Matthew Wren, Bishop of Ely. A MS. volume 
in possession of the College. Leland's Collectanea, Vol. v. p. 390.) 
The Manuscript life in Caius ('oUege Library seems to be copied from 
the former.] 


reasonably presumed, that he was born in London ; and 
that whilst a boy at school he manifested indications of 
that talent which developed itself so conspicuously at a 
later age. An anecdote has been preserved wliich shews 
that even at an early period he was possessed with the 
ambition of distinguishing himself above his associates. It 
happened, singularly enough, that as a schoolfellow he came 
into competition with Edmund Campian m a contest for 
the prize of a silver pen, offered by one of the masters as 
a reward for the best Uterary exercise. Our aspiring young 
scholar being unsuccessful bore liis disappointment with 
so ill a grace as to shed tears under it, indignantly 
looking forward to the reprisals of a future competition. 
From Christ's Hospital, where it appears likely that Fulke 
received the rudiments of his education, (as it is certain 
that Campian was educated there ^) he was transferred to 
St John's College, Cambridge, a. d. 1555. After taking liis 
degree of bachelor of arts, his father, designing him for the 
legal profession, entered him a student of Chfford's Inn. 
During the six years and upwards that he remained here 
pursuing legal studies, he made himself weU acquainted with 
the sciences, and gave to the world his Ovpavoixa-^^ia, a 
treatise in which he exposed the absurdities of astrology. 
At length returning to the University, he proceeded to his 
Master's degree, being at the same time elected fellow of 
his college, a.d. 1564. 

The change thus indicated in his plans so displeased 
his father, that for a time he withdrew from him the neces- 
sary means of subsistence. The zeal of Fulke suffered, 
however, Httle diminution under his pecuniary difficulties ; 
and we find him immediately pursuing his new course of 
study with alacrity. To that of theology he now joined 

[} This however is np conclusive evidence, especially as Fulke must 
have been at least fifteen years old at the time of tlie foundation of the 
Hospital (1553).] 


the acquisition of the oriental languages, a deep knowledge 
of which was by no means common at the time. He pro- 
ceeded to the degree of bachelor of divinity ; and dissen- 
sions immediately afterwards springing up in liis college, 
and liimself bemg suspected of holding puritanical opinions 
in consequence of his close intimacy with Cartwright, he 
was ejected from the society. Driven from his college, he 
commenced a course of lectures, and held disputations in 
a house which was afterwards the Falcon Inn. These were 
attended by a numerous class of students. 

The time was however approaching, when his fortunes 
were to witness a beneficial change ; for the Earl of Leices- 
ter, who was anxious to promote men of merit, irrespectively 
of ti'ifling differences of opinion, had singled him out as 
eminently deserving preferment. Through his means he 
was presented, Aug. 10, 1571, to the rectory of Warley 
in Essex, and soon afterwards, March, 1573, to that of 
Bennington in Suffolk. On the earl of Lincoln being sent 
as British ambassador to Paris, Fulke was appointed one 
of his suite, a circumstance which enabled him to obtain 
the honorary degree of doctor of divinity. 

The same influence may have contributed to his ad- 
vancement to the mastership of Pembroke College in 1578, 
on the promotion of Dr Young to the see of Rochester. 
He had in this elevated station ample leisure to devote his 
talents to polemical theology ; and that he advantageously 
availed himself of it, is sufficiently evident from the numerous 
works he has left to posterity in vindication of the reformed 
religion. He was also engaged in 1580 and following 
years in repeated disputations with the Papists, sometimes 
in the Tower, and once at least in Wisbech Castle. (See 
No. 17, in the subjoined list of his works.) This castle, 
originally built by William the Conqueror, was afterwards con- 
verted into a palace of the bishops of Ely, and in the reign 
of Elizabeth was used as a prison for popish conspirators. 


One account states that he was also Margaret Professor 
of Divinity ; but this fact appears to be at least very 
doubtful. Having filled the office of vice-chancellor, and 
governed his college for eleven years, Fulke died in Au- 
gust, 1589. 

The voluminous writings he left behind him are monu- 
ments of that industry and love of study, which (it is 
supposed) alone prevented his higher advancement in the 
church ; and they furnish satisfactory evidence, that among 
contemporary scholars none surpassed him in erudition, in a 
grammatical and deep acquaintance with the learned tongues, 
in acutcness and closeness of reasoning: none devoted more 
vigorous and untiring energy in supporting the bulwarks 
of the Church of England. 

He was buried in the chancel of his church at Den- 
nington, and the following epitaph was placed by one of 
his admiring successors over his tomb. 

30. November. 1621. 
In Memoriam 
Reverendi Gulielmi Fulke, Sacrae Theologize Doct. Aulse 
Pemb. in Cantabrigia Prsefect. Hujus Ecclesise Dinning- 
toniensis pastor, ac in Testimonium amoris sui perpetui erga 
eum, hoc Monumentum posiiit Robertus Wright, Sacrae quo- 
que TheologisB Professor, et nunc cjusdem Ecclesise Pastor. 
Corpus ilUus Terra) traditum fuit 28 Die August! 1589, et 
in hoc saccUo jacet resurrectionem expectans per adventura 

If deepest Learning, with a zealous Love 

To Heaven and Truth, could Priveledges prove 

To keep back Death, no Hand had written here 

Lies Reverend Fulke, 'till Christ in Clouds appear ; 

His Works will shew, him free from all Error, 

Rome's Foe, Truth's Champion, and Rhemishes Terror. 


Heureux celui qu' apres un long Travaill 
. S 'est assure de son repos au Ciell. 

The present volume, it is believed, will be found to be 
an accurate reprint (with a corrected punctuation, which 
was much needed) of the original edition of the "Defence," 
1583. But in one or two places a correction has been 
introduced from the folio edition, 1633 : ex. gr. p. 550, 
senseless for insenseless, which, though not perhaps ab- 
solutely necessary, it appeared desirable and safe to adopt 
on such authority. In several instances also, in which the 
quotation from Martin was inaccurately given by Fulke, the 
mistake has been corrected by reference to the original* 

In both the old editions there was subjoined to the 
present work (but with a separate paging), ' A briefs con- 
futation of all such quarrels and cauils, as have bene of late 
vttered by diuerse Papistes in their Enghsh Pamphlets, 
against the writings of the saide William Fulke ;' as the 
reader will see in the copy of the original title-page pre- 
fixed to this publication. This ' Confutation,' however, has 
no connection whatever with the ' Defence of the Transla- 
tions :' it is therefore not here re-printed with it, but is 
reserved for a future volume of Fulke, where it will come 
more appropriately in company with the works which it 
undertakes to defend. 

Besides the 'Defence' reprinted in the present volume, 
Fulke was the author of the following works : 

1. Antiprognosticon contra inutiles astrologorum pr^e- 
dictiones Nostrodami, Cunninghami, Loui, HilU, Vaghami et 
reliquorum omnium. Authore Guilielmo Fulcone. Authori- 
tate Londinensis episcopi juxta formam in edictis reginsB pre- 
scriptam. Sexto die Septembris, 1560. Lond. 8vo. 


A translation of this work was published in the yeai* 
1561, (Tanner says 1560), with the following title : Anti- 
prognosticon, that is to saye, an Inucctive agaynst the uaine 
and vnprofitable predictions of the astrologians, as Nostro- 
dame, &c. Translated out of Latin into Englishe. Where- 
unto is added, by the author, a short treatise in Englishe, 
as Avell for the better subuersion of that fained arte, as 
also for the better vnderstanding of the common people, 
vnto whom the fyrst labour seemeth not sufficient. Lond. 
1561, 8vo. 

2. A goodly gallery, with a most pleasaunt prospect 
into the garden of naturall contemplation, to beholde the 
naturall causes of all kind of Meteors. As well fyery as 
ayery, as watry and earthly, of which sorte be biasing 
starres, shootingc starres, flames in the ayre, &c.; thonder, 
lightninge, earthquakes, &c. ; rayne, dew, snowe, cloudes, 
springes, &c. ; stones, metalles, earthes. To the glory of 
God, and the profitte of his creatures. Lond. 1571, 8vo. 
1634, 1640, 8vo. From the colophon of the edition of 
1571, it appears that this book was printed in 1563, but 
no copy has been found with that date on the title-page, 
and the edition of 1640 is styled the third. Tanner men- 
tions editions in 1563 and 1580, under the title of ' Me- 
teorologia, AngHce.' 

3. Ovpavona-^ia^ hoc est, Astrologorum Indus ad bo- 
narum artium et Astrologiae in primis studiosorum relax- 
ationem comparatus, nunc primum illustratus, ac in lucem 
feditus per Guihelmum Fulconem, Cantabrigiensem. Abacus 
et calculi vseneunt apud Guilielmum Jones, in longa officina, 
ad occidentalem Paulini templi portam. Londini per Thomas 
Eastum et Henricum Middeltonnum impensis Guilielmi Jones. 
1571, 1572, 1573, 4to. 

4. A confutation of a Popish and sclaunderous libelle, 
in form of an Apologie : geuen out into the courte, and 
spread abrode in diuerse other places of the realme. Written 


by William Fulke, Bachelor in Diuinitie, and felowe of S. 
Johns CoUedge in Cambridge, Imprinted at London by 
John Ivingston for Wilham Jones, and are to be soldo at the 
noAve long shop at the west ende of Ponies. 1571, 1573, 
1574, 12mo. 

5. A Sermon preached at Hampton Court on Sonday, 
being the 12th day of Nouember, in the year of our Lord 
1570. Wherein is plamly proued Babylon to be Rome, 
both by Scriptures and Doctors. Preached by WiUiam 
Fulke, Bacheler of Diuinity, and Fellow of S. Johns Col- 
ledge in Cambridge. ApocaUps. 14. She is fallen, she 
is fallen, euen Babylon, that great citie, for of the wyne of 
the fury of her fornication, she hath made all nationsv to 
drinke. Imprinted at London, by John Awdely. 1572, 

There was a subsequent edition with the same title, 
except that FuUie was described as ' Doctor' not ' Bachelor', 
and ' lately Fellow', &c. Imprinted at London by John 
Charlewod, 1579, 12mo. 

6. In sacram Divi Johannis Apocalypsim praelectiones. 
Lend. 1573, 4to. Translated into English by George 
Gyfford. Lond. 1573, 4to. 

7. A Comfortable Sermon of Fayth in temptations and 
afflictions. Preached at S. Botulphes wythout Aldersgate 
in London, the xv of February, 1573, by Maister William 
Fulke, Doctor of Divinity. 1 John v. 4. Imprinted at 
London by John Audeley. 1574, 1578, 1586, 12mo. 

8. Two treatises written against the papistes ; the 
one being an answer of the Christian protestant to the 
proud challenge of a popish catholicke : the other, a confu- 
tation of the popish churches doctrine touching purgatory 
and prayers for the dead. By Wilham Fulke, Doctor in 
Divinitie. Lond. Thomas VautrolUer, 1577, 8vo. pp. 464. 

9. A sermon preached on Sunday c, being the I7th of 
March, anno 1577, at S. Alphage's church within Creplegate 


in London, by William Fulke, Doctor in Divinitie. Seene 
and allowed, accordyng to the order appoynted in the 
queenes maiesties iniunctions. Imprinted at London for 
Lucas Harryson, 1577, 12mo. 

This sermon was translated into Latin, by John Fox, 
and appended to his book, entitled De Christo gratis ius- 
tificante, Lond. 1583. 

10. Mer/jo/Map^/a, sive Indus geometricus. Auctore 
Guiliemo Fulcone Anglo. Lond. Thomas VautroUerius, 

1578, 4to. 

11. GuiHelmi Fulconis Angli ad epistolam Stanislai 
Hosii Varmiensis episcopi de expresso Dei verbo Responsio. 
Lond. 1578, 12mo. 

12. D. Heskins, D. Sanders, and M. Rastell accounted 
(among their faction) three pillers and archpatriarches of the 
popish synagogue, (utter enemies to the truth of Christes 
Gospell and all that syncerely profess the same) ouerthrowne 
and detected of their seuerell blasphemous heresies. By D. 
Fulke, Maister of Pembroke Hall in Cambridge. Lond. 

1579, 8vo. pp. 803. 

This work consists of three treatises mentioned by Tan- 
ner separately, as ' Heskins parHament repealed,' ' Confu- 
tation of N. Sanders his treatise of worshipping images,' and 
' Refutation of John Rastell's confutation.' 

13. Ad ThomaB Stapletoni, Professoris Regii et Ordina- 
rii in Academia Duacena, controversiarum et calumnias in sua 
principiorum doctrinalium demonstratione methodica contra 
satisfactione, ad Rishtoni postulata quaedam, lib. 4. cap. 10 et 
11 adliibitas, Guihelmi Fulconis, Angli, aulae Pembrochianae in 
Cantabrigiensi academia praefecti, Responsio. Londini, im- 
pensis Georgii Bishop, 1579, 8vo. 

14. A Retentive to stay good Christians in true faith 
an(Lreligion, against the motives of Richard Bristow. Also, 
a discoverie of the daungerous Rocke of the Popish Church, 
commended by Nicholas Sander, Doctor of Divinitie. Done 


by William Fiilke, Doctor of Divinitie, and Maister of Pem- 
broke Hall in Cambridge. Lond. Thomas Vautrollier, 1580, 
8vo, pp. 316. 

15. T. Stapleton and Martiall (two Popish Heretikes) 
confuted, and of theii' particular heresies detected. Bv 
D. Fulke, Master of Pembroke Hall in Cambridge. Done 
and directed to all those that love the truth, and hate 
superstitious vanities. Lond. H. Middleton, Svo. 1580, 
pp. 217. 

16. Stapletonii fortalitium expugnatum ; cum refutatione 
replicationis J. Martialis ad J. Calfhillum contra librum ejus 
de cruce. Lond. 1580, 12mo. 

17. Conferentia cum pontificiis in castro Wisbicensi. 
4. Oct. 1580. Lond. 1580. Svo. 

18. The text of the New Testament of Jesus Christ, 
translated out of the Vulgar Latine by the Papists of the 
traiterous Seminarie at Rhemes. With arguments of Bookes, 
Chapters, and Annotations, pretending to discouer the cor- 
ruptions of diuers translations, and to clear the controuersies 
of these days. Whereunto is added the translation out of 
the original Greeke, commonly used in the Church of Eng- 
land, with a confutation of all such Arguments, Glosses, 
and Annotations as contein manifest impietie or heresie, 
treason, and slander against the Cathohke Church of God, 
and the true teachers thereof, or the translations used in 
the Church of England. Both by aucthoritie of the holy 
vScriptures, and by the testimonie of ancient fathers. By 
William FuUce, D.D. Lond. 1580, 1589, 1601, 1617, 
1633, fol. 

19. A Sermon on 2 Saml. xxiv. 1. Lond. 1580, 8vo. 

20. A Sermon at the Tower on John xvii. 17. Lond. 
1580, 8vo. 1581, 16mo. 

21. A rejoynder to Bristow's Replie in defence of 
Aliens scrolc of Articles and Bookc of Purgatoric. Also 
the cavils of Nicholas Sander, Doctor in Divinitie, about 


the Supper of our Lord, and the Apologie of the Church 
of England touching the doctrine thereof. Confuted by 
Wilham Fulke, Doctor in Divinitie, and Master of Pem- 
broke Hall in Cambridge. At London, H. Middleton, 
1581, 8vo. pp. 792. 

22. A Brief Confutation of a Popish Discourse, lately 
set forth, and presumptuously dedicated to the Queenes most 
excellent maiestie, by John Howlet, or some other Birde of 
the night under that name. Contayning certaine reasons 
why Papistes refuse to come to Church, which are here 
inserted and set downe at large, with their seuerall answeres. 
By D. Fulke, maister of Pembroke Hall in Cambridge. 
Seeno and allowed. At London, printed for George Bishop, 
1581, 4to. 

23. A Brief and Plain Declaration : containing the de- 
sires of all those faithful Ministers who seek Discipline and 
Reformation of the Church of England, which may come as 
a just Apology against the false Accusations and Slanders 
of their Adversaries. 1584. 

24. De Successione Ecclesiastica et latente ab Anti- 
christi tyrannide ecclesia, Liber contra Tliomse Stapletoni 
principiorum fidei doctrinalium librum decimum tertium ; 
auctore Guihelmo Fulcone Anglo, Aulae Pembrochianro in 
Cantabrigiensi Academia Prsefecto. Lond. Henricus Midle- 
tonus, impensis Georgii Bishop, 1584, 12mo. pp. 474. 

25. An apologie of the professors of the Gospel in 
Fraunce against the railing declamation of Peter Frarine 
a Louanian turned into English by John Fowler. Written 
by William Fulke. 8vo. pp. 54. This and also the fol- 
lowing work, No. 26, were published separately, and also 
appended to the ' Treatise against the defence of the censure 
given upon the books of W. Clarke and Meredith Hanmer, 
by an unknown popish traytor, in defence of the seditious 
challenge of Edmond Caippion.' Camb. 1586, 8vo. 

26. A Confutation of a treatise made by Wilham Allen 


in defence of the usurped power of Popish Priesthood to 
remit emnes, of the necessity of Shrift, and of the Popes 
pardons. By William Fullce. Imprinted by Thomas Thomas, 
Cambridge, [1586], pp. 531, 8vo. Tanner mentions an 
edition. Lend. 1586, 8vo. 

Amongst the Harleian Manuscripts are the following : 
No. 422. fol. 148. 

A Disputation or Conference had within the Towre of 
London, on Monday, being the 18th of September, A. D. 
1581. Wherein were assembled the Lorde of Glanrikerd, Sir 
Owen Hopton, Su* WilUam George, Sir Thomas Hinnage, 
Sir Nicholas Poynes, besides others : Doctour Foulkes 'and 
Doctour Goade, Disputants, being sitting at a table, having 
there certaine bookes about them. Mr Clarke and Mr Field 
being as Notaries at the said table, and for the said Con- 
ference appointed ; before whom and right opposite upon a 
stoole was sett Mr Campion, Jesuite, having only his Bible. 

Ibid. fol. 168. 

A third Disputation between the said Doctors Fulke and 
Goade opponents, and Campion the Jesuite respondent. 

A report of these conferences, but differing considerably 
from that contained in these MSS., was published with the 
following title, ' The three last dayes conferences had in the 
Tower with Edmund Campion, Jesuite, the 18. 23. and 
27. of September, 1581. Collected and faithfully set down 
by M. John Fielde, student in Diuinitie. Nowe perused 
by the learned men themselues, and thought meete to be 
published.' Januarij 1, 1583. London, 4to. This volume 
is often found appended to the report of the first day's con- 
ference to which Fulke was not a party. 


To the foregoing account of Fulke it may be interesting to 
the reader to have subjoined a brief notice of his 
opponent, Gregory Martin. 

Gregory Martin was born at Maxfield near Winchelsea, 
but in what precise year we are unable to state. The 
earliest date connected with his life informs us, that in 1557 
he was nominated one of the original scholars of St John's 
college, Oxford, by the founder Sir Thomas White. He 
went through the usual course of logic and philosophy with 
great diligence, and took his Master of arts' degree in 1564. 
Shortly afterwards he was engaged by Thomas duke of 
Norfolk to be tutor to his cliildren, amongst whom he had 
the honour of instructing Philip, the celebrated earl of Arundel. 
That Martin was a person of considerable reputation may 
be gathered from the circumstance, that when his patron 
visited Oxford, one of the feUows of St John's dehvered 
before him a speech, in wliich Martin was highly compli- 
mented as a Hebrew and Greek scholar, and commemorated 
as a distinguished ornament of theu* society. 

Having terminated his engagement in the duke of 
Norfolk's family he went abroad, and openly renounced 
the Protestant rehgion, having been previously a favourer 
of the doctrmes of the Romish church only in secret. He 
now settled himself at Douay, applied liimself to the study 
of theology, was ordained priest in 1573, and licentiate in 
divinity in 1575. He subsequently travelled ; visited Rome, 
and the other places in Italy which a person of his views 
would most naturally desire to see, and at length per- 
manently fixed himself at Rheims, where he became public 
professor and one of the readers of divinity in the EngHsh 
semmary. He died there Oct. 28, 1582, and was buried 
in St Stephen's church. , 

Martin was considered a person of great learning, an 


excellent linguist, and superior to most scholars of his time. 
Besides the work reprinted in the present volume, he was 
one of the principal persons concerned in that translation of 
the New Testament, which is quoted and generally known 
under the title of the Rhemish. The first edition was 
printed at Rheims in 4to in 1582 : a second edition by 
Daniel VerveUet at Antwerp, 4to, 1600 : a third in 1630, 
and a fourth at Paris in 1633. It was reprinted in London, 
with "the Bishops'" translation in a parallel column: and 
' A Confutation of all such arguments, glosses, and annota- 
tions as contain manifest impiety, or heresy, treason and 
slander against the catholick Church of God, and the true 
teachers thereof, or the translations used in the Church, of 
England ; by Dr WilUam Fulke.' The marginal notes of 
the Rhemish Testament were answered in 1588, in " A 
View of the marginal notes of the Popish Testament, trans- 
lated into English by the Enghsh fugitive papists resident 
at Rheims, in France, by George Withers." The Rhemish 
translation was also reprinted in 1618 'by some friends 
to the memory of the learned Thomas Cartwright,' with a 
Confutation \ 

The following are the titles of other works attributed 
to Gregory Martin by Antony Wood, Tanner, and Dod : 

A Treatise of Schisme ; shewing that al Catholikes 
ought in any wise to abstaine altogether from heretical con- 
venticles, to witt, their Prayers, Sermons, &c. 1578, b. 1. 
1587, Doway-, 

A Treatyse of Christian Peregrinatione ; written by 
M. Gregory Martin, Licentiate, and late Reader of Divinitie, 

[' Towneley's lUustr. of Biblical Literature, Vol. iii, pp. 74, 75, 
Lewis's Hist, of Engl, Transl, of the Bible, pp. 294, 295,] 

[^ For reprinting this book Carter the printer was condemned of 
treason and executed, it being thought to contain a recommendation to 
assasinate the queen. See Concert. Ecclesiae Cathol. pp. 127, 129, 130. 
Strype's Annals, xi. 587, iii. 281, ch, 23. Fuller's Church Hist, xvi, 


at Kernes : Whereunto is adioyned certen Epistles written 
by him to Sundrye his frendes ; the copies whereof were 
since his decease foimde amonge his writtings. Nowe espe- 
cially pubhshed for the benefite of those that either erre 
in religione of simplicitie, or folow the worlde of frailty. 
Lond. 1583. 16mo. 

Against the Marriage of Priests. 1584. 

Of the love of the Soul, with questions to the Protes- 
tants. Printed at Rouen and St Omer's. 12mo. 1603. 

Roma Sancta. 

Dictionarium quatuor linguarum, Hebraicse, Graecpe, La- 
tinaB, et Anglicse, et vocabulorum ac phrasium secundum 
cuj usque linguae proprietatem. 

Compendium historiarum, hb. i. 

Orationes de jejunio, de imaginum usu et cultu. MS, in 
the library of John Pits. 

Pro veteri et vera Graecarum literarum pronuntia- 
tione, adversus Adolphum Mekerchium Brugensem. Edit. 
Havercamp. Ludg. Bat. 1740. 

Diversorum carminum partim Graece partim Latine, 
lib. I. 

Besides these lie left behind several translations. 

The Editor of the present volume has the pleasure of 
expressing his grateful acknowledgements to the Right Hon. 
the Earl Spencer, for the permission allowed him to con- 
sult the valuable collection of Bibles at Althorpe 









ta defense 

of the sincere and true Tran- 
slations of the holie Scriptures into 

the English tong, against the manifolde cauils, 
friuolous quarels,and impudent slaunders of Gre- 
GORiE Martin, one of the readers of Po- 
pish diuinitie in the trayterous Serai- 
narie of Rhemes. 

By William Fvlke D. in Diuinitie, 
and M. of Pembroke haule in Cambridge. 

Wherevnto is added a briefe confutation of alt such 

quarrels & cauils, as have bene of late vttered by diuerse 

Papistes in their English Pamphlets, against the 

writings of the saide William Fvlke. 


Imprinted by Henrie Bynneman, 
for George Bishop. 

Anno. 1583. 

Cum gratia 4* Priuilegio. 





Heretikes of our daies, specially the 
English Sectaries, and of their foule 
dealing herein, by partial & false trans- 
lations to the aduantage of their here- 
sies, in their EngUsh Bibles vsed and 
authorised since the time of Schisme. 

By Gregory Martin one of the readers 
of Diuinitie in the English College 
OP Rhemes. 

2 Cor. 2. 

Non sumus sicut plurimi, adulterantes verhiin Dei, sed 
ex sinceritate, sed sicut ex Deo, coram Deo, in Christo 

That is, 

We are not as very many, adulterating the word 
of God, but of sinceritie, & as of God, before 
God, in Christ we speake. 

Printed at RHEMES, 
By John Fogny, 






Among the inestimable benefits, wherewith Almighty God 
hath wonderfully blessed this yoiu' majesty's most honourable 
and prosperous government, it is not to be numbered among 
the least, that under your most gracious and christian pro- 
tection the people of your highness' dominions have enjoyed 
the most necessary and comfortable reading of the holy scrip- 
tures in their mother tongue and native language. Which 
exercise, although it hath of long time, by the adversaries of 
him that willeth the scriptures to be searched, (especially 
those of our nation,) been accounted httle better than an 
D H'skin'''2 heretical practice ; and treatises have been written, pretending 
to shew great inconvenience of having the holy scriptures in 
the vulgar tongue ; yet now at length perceiving they cannot 
prevail to bring in that darkness and ignorance of God's most 
sacred word and will therein contained, whereby their blind 

[_^ John Standisli here alluded to was admitted a probationer feUow 
of Corpus Christi, Oxford, in 1528. In the time of Edward VI. he was 
a zealous reformer, made rector of Wigan, and married ; but was sepa- 
rated from his wife when queen Mary ascended the throne, and deprived 
of his preferment. Bp. Bonner for his affections to popery gave him 
the rectory of Packlesham. Among other works he wrote " A Treatise 
against the Translation of the Bible into the vulgar language ; printed by 
Caley in 1554," of which there was a second edition by the same printer 
the following year. Wood's Athense. Vol. i. p. 236 — 8.] 

P Thomas Heskins, or Heskyns, was collated by Cardinal Pole to 
the chancellorship of Salisbury, 1558, but ejected on the accession of 
Elizabeth the following year. (Le Neve's Fasti, p. 269. Wood's Fasti, 
p. 113.) Heskins wrote " the Parliament of Christ, concerning the 
Sacrament, impugned in a sermon by John Jewell. Ant. 1566. fol." 
It was answered by Fulke in his book entitled Heskins' Parliament 
repealed by W. F. Lond. 1579.] 


devotion, the daughter of ignorance, as they themselves pro- 
fess, was -wont to make them rulers of the world, they also 
at the last are become translators of the New Testament mto 
Enghsh. In which, that I speak notliing of their insincere 
purpose, in leaving the pm^e fountain of the original verity, 
to follow the crooked stream of their barbarous vulgar Latin 
translation, which (beside all other manifest corruptions) is 
found defective in more than an hundred places, as your ma- 
jesty, according to the excellent knowledge in both the tongues 
wherewith God hath blessed you, is very well able to judge ; 
and to omit even the same book of their translation, pestered 
with so many annotations, both false and imdutiful, by which, 
under colour of the authority of holy scriptures, they seek to* 
infect the minds of the credulous readers with heretical and 
superstitious opinions, and to alienate their hearts from yielding 
due obedience to your majesty and your most christian laws 
concerning true rehgion established; and that I may pass 
over the very text of then* translation, obscured without any 
necessary or just cause with such a multitude of so strange 
and unusual terms, as to the ignorant are no less difficult to 
understand, than the Latin or Greek itself: yet is it not meet 
to be concealed, that they wliich neither truly nor precisely 
have translated their own vulgar Latin and only authentical 
text, have nevertheless been bold to set forth a several trea- 
tise, in which most slanderously and unjustly they accuse all 
om' EngUsh translations of the bible, not of small imperfections 
and oversights committed tlu-ough ignorance or negligence, but 
of no less than most foul dealing in partial and false transla- 
tions, wilful and heretical corruptions. 

Against which most lewd and untrue accusation, though 
easy to be judged of by such as be learned in the tongues, 
yet dangerous to disquiet the conscience of them that be 
ignorant in the same, I have written a short and necessary 
defence ; which, although not laboured in words, yet in 
matter I hope sufficient to avoid all the adversaries' cavils. 


I am most humbly to crave pardon, that I may be bold to 
dedicate rnito yom* most excellent majesty ; tliat under whose 
high and christian authority yom' people have so many years 
enjoyed the reading of the holy books of God in their native 
language, to the everlasting benefit of many thousand souls, 
under the same your most gracious and royal protection they 
may read also the defence of the sincere and faithful trans- 
lation of those books, to the quieting of their consciences, and 
the confusion of the adversaries of God's truth and holy re- 
ligion. By which they may be stirred up more and more in 
all dutiful obedience, not only to be thankful unto yom* ma- 
jesty, as it becometh them, but also to continue their most 
earnest and hearty prayers to Almighty God for this your 
most godly and happy regiment over them for many years 
forward to be prolonged. 

The God of glory, which hitherto hath advanced your 

majesty's throne, above all princes of tliis age, in true honour 

and glory, vouchsafe to preserve the same with his daily 

blessing, to the protection of that glorious reparation 

of his church, which you have most happUy 

taken in hand, to the everlasting praise 

of his mercy, and the endless 

fehcity of your 

majesty ! 

Your majesty's most humble subject, 
and most bounden daily orator, 





Martin. As it hath been always the fashion of heretics to pretend Heretics 
scriptures for shew of their cause ; so hath it been also their custom speciafiy^ 
and propei-ty to abuse the said scriptures many ways in favour of their-g^rip^fj^g^s. 

Fulke. Whether these five abuses have been common to Fulkb. 
all heretics, and whether it hath been the fashion of all here- 
tics to pretend scriptm^es for shew of then* cause, though I 
will spare now to inquire of, as a thing wherein learned men 
at the first sight may espy the great skill that Martin pre- 
tendeth to have in discerning of heretics and heresies ; yet 
will I shew (by the grace of God) that none of these five 
abuses are committed by us or our catholic translations, and 
that the popish heretics are, in some sort or other, guilty of 
them all. 

Martin. One way is, to deny whole books thereof, or parts of Martin, 1. 
books, when they are evidently against them. So did (for example) Jertetn^books 
Ebion all St Paul's epistles, Manicheus the Acts of the Apostles, Alo- '^^l^^ °^ 
giani St John's gospel, Marcion many pieces of St Luke's gospel, and 
so did both these and other heretics in_pther books, denying and allowing 
what they list, as is evident by St Irenaeus, St Epiphanius, St Augus- 
tine, and all antiquity. 

Fulke. First, we deny no one book of the canonical Fulke, 1. 
scripture, that hath been so received of the cathohc chm-ch, 
for the space of 300 years and more, as it hath been often 
proved out of Eusebius, St Jerome, and other ancient au- 
thorities : but the papists, in advancing apocryphal books to 
be of equal credit with the canonical scriptures, do in effect 
deny them all. Besides that, to add unto the word of God 
is as great a fault as to take away from it, the one being 


forbidden under as heavy a curse as the other. Those blas- 
phemies of Pighius' and Eccius", the one calling the holy 
scripture a nose of wax and a dumb judge, the other 
terming the gospel written to be a black gospel and an 
inlvy divinity ; and that of Hosius^, acknowledging none other 
express word of God, but only this one word ama, or dilige, 
" love thou ;" what other thing do they import, but a shame- 
less denial of all books of the holy scripture in deed, howso- 
ever in word they will seem to admit them ? 

Martin, 2. Martin. Another way is, to call into question at the least, and 
of their ''""^ make some doubt of the authority of certain books of holy scriptures, 
and'caiimg thereby to diminish their credit. So did Manicheus affimi of the whole 
'ueSion'" -^^^ Testament, that it was not written by the apostles; and peculi- 
arly of St Matthew's gospel, that it was some other man's under his 
name, and therefore not of such credit, but that it might in some part be 
refused. So did Marcion, and the Ai-ians, deny the epistle to the He- 
brews to be St Paul's, Epiph. lib. 2. haer. 69, Euseb. lib. 4. hist. c. 27 ; 
and Alogiani the Apocalypse to be St John's the Evangelist, Epiph. et 
August, in hser. Alogianorum. 

FuLKE, 2. Fulke. We neither doubt of the authority of any certain 
book of the holy scriptures, neither call we any of them into 
question ; but with due reverence do acknowledge them all 
and every one to be of equal credit and authority, as being 

P Sunt enim illae (scripturte), ut non minus vere quam festive dixit 
quidam, velut nasus cereus, qui se horsum, illorsum, et in quam volueris 
partem, trahi, retrahi, fingique facile permittit. Pighius, Hierarch. 
Eccles, Assertio, Lib. iii. cap. 3. fol. 80, edit. 1638. Albert Pighius, a 
mathematician and controversialist, bom at Kempen in Westphalia 
about 1490, and died 1542.] 

P Scriptores canonici semper prius habuerunt evangeUum mentale, 
quam ederent illud nigrum in literis. Eck. Apologia pro Principibus 
Catholicis. Fol. 74 b. Antverp. 1542. Tu nos ad mortuas pelles, ad 
atramentum remittis, et literam. Ibid. fol. 156 b. Echius, or Eckius, 
was professor and chancellor of the University of Ingolstad, and a cele- 
brated controversialist of the 16th century. His chief work was a 
"Manual of Controversy," which went through many editions. He 
was born in Suabia in 1486, and died at Ingolstad in 1543.] 

Q^ Vis autem quod sit verbum salvificans cognoscere ? Breve verbum 
est et expedituni, Ama. Caritas est verbum salvificans, etc. Hosii Opera, 
De Expresso Dei Verbo. Tom. i. p. 628. Stanislas Hosius was one of 
the most illustrious cardinals of the 16th century, born at Cracow in 
1504. He opened the CouncU of Trent as legate from Pius the Fourth, 
and was subsequently appointed grand penitentiary by Grcgoiy the Thir- 
teenth, He died in 1579.] 


all inspired of God, given to the church for the building up 
thereof in truth, and for the avoiding of fables and heresies. 
But the papists, arrogating to their pope authority to allow 
or refuse any book of holy scripture, and affirming that 
no scripture hath authority but as it is approved by their 
church, do bring aU books of the holy scripture into doubting 
and uncertainty with such as will depend upon their pope 
and popish church's authority, which they affirm to be above 
the holy scriptures, saying they might as weU receive the 
gospel of Nicodemus as of St Mark, and by the same au- 
thority reject the gospel of St Matthew, as they have done 
the gospel of St Bartholomew. These blasphemous assertions 
although some of them would colom' or mitigate with gentle 
interpretations, yet there is no reasonable man but seeth 
into what discredit and imcertainty they must needs bring 
the authority of the canonical books of holy scripture with 
the simple and ignorant. 

Martin. Another way is, to expound the scriptures after their own Ma rtin, 3. 
private conceit and fantasy, not according to the approved sense of the expositiom'^^ 
holy ancient fathers and cathoUc church. So did Theodorus Mopsues- evCTy'^onl's" 
tites (Act. Synod 5.) affirm of all the books of the prophets, and of the ^g"gj°'' 
Psalms, that they spake not evidently of Christ ; but that the ancient 
fathers did voluntarily draw those sayings unto Christ, which were 
spoken of other matters. So did aU heretics, that would seem to ground 
their heresies upon scriptiu'es, and to avouch them by scriptxires ex- 
pounded according to their own sense and imagination. 

Fulke. We expound not the scriptures after our own Fulke, 3. 
private conceit and fantasy ; but, as near as God giveth us 
grace, according to the plain and natural sense of the same, 
agreeable unto the rule or proportion of faith, which being 
approved by the ancient fathers^ and catholic church of Clu-ist, 
in all matters necessary to eternal salvation : not bringing 
a new and strange sense, which is without the scriptures, to 
seek confirmation thereof in the scriptures (as the manner 
of heretics is rightly noted by Clemens*); but out of the scrip- 
tures themselves seek we the exposition of such obscure 
places as we find in them, being persuaded with St Augus- 

L Ot fie iqBovals <T(pas avrovs eKBeBcoKOT^s jBia^ovrai npos tcis fnt- 
6vfiias Trjv ypa<^r)v. Clem. Alexandr. Stromatum vii. p. 890. Ed. Potter. 
Venet. 1767.] 


tine^ that nothing in a manner is found out of those obscure and 
dark places, which may not be found to be most plainly spoken 
in other places. And as for the approved sense of the holy 
ancient fathers, and catholic church of the eldest and pm^est 
times, if the papists durst stand unto it for the deciding of 
many of the most weighty controversies that are between us, 
there is no doubt but they should soon and easily be de- 
termined, as hath been shewed in divers and many treatises, 
written against them. In which if any thing be brought so 
plainly expoimding the scripture against their popish heresies, 
as nothing can be more express nor clear, then they are driven 
to seek new and monstrous expositions of those fathers' inter- 
pretations ; or else they answer, " They are but those fathers' 
private expositions ;" appealing to the catholic chm'ch's in- 
terpretation, which is nothing else but their own private conceit 
and fancy, having no record to prove that catholic church's 
interpretation but the present heretical opinions of this late 
degenerated antichristian congregation. And when they have 
discoursed never so much of the cathohc church's interpre- 
tation, they reduce and submit all men's judgments to the 
determination of their councils, and the decrees of the councils 
to the approbation of their pope ; wliich, as he is oftentimes 
a wicked man of life, so is he ignorant and unlearned in the 
scriptures ; to whose most private censure the holy scriptm-es 
themselves, and all sense and exposition of them, is made 
subject, under colour that Christ, praying for Peter that his 
faith should not fail in temptation, gave all popes such a pre- 
rogative, that they could not err in faith ; though they were 
wicked of life, void of learning, ignorant in the scriptures, 

[} Deinde ilia quae in eis aperte posita sunt, vel precepta vivendi, vel 
regulae credendi, sollertius diligentiusque investiganda sunt, quae tanto 
quisque plura invenit, quanto est intelligentia capacior. In iis enim 
quae aperte in scripturis posita sunt, inveniuntur ilia omnia quae con- 
tinent fidem moresque vivendi, spem scilicet atque caritatem, de quibus 
libro superiore tractavimus. Turn vero facta quadam familiaritate cum 
ipsa lingua divinarum scripturarum, in ea quiB obscura sunt aperienda 
et discutienda pergendum est, ut ad obscuriores locutiones illustrandas de 
manifestioribus sumantur exempla, et qusedam certarum sententiarum 
testimonia dubitationem incertis auferant. — Augustinus de Doctrina 
Christiana. Lib. ii, 14. Opera. Vol. iii. p. 24. edit. Benedict. Paris. 
1696. Ubi autem apertius ponuntur, ibi discendum est quomodo in locis 
intelligantur obscuris. — Ibid. Lib. iii. 87. p. 56.] 


destitute of the Spirit of God ; as is proved most invincibly 
by example of divers popes that have been heretics, and main- 
tainors of such errors as are not now in controversy between 
us (lest they should say we beg the prmciple), but of the 
sect of the Arians, Monothehtes, Eutychians, Saducees, and 
such other. 

Martin. Another way is, to alter the very original text of the holy M7\rtinj 4. 
scripture, by adding, taking away, or changing it here and there for somTwS^ 
their purpose. So did the Arians in sundry places, and the Nestorians "f the'verT 
in the first epistle of St John, and especially Marcion, who was there- °'^^^'^^^ '^^^^t- 
fore called Mus Ponticus, the mouse of Pontus, because he had gnawn Marcio. Ub. 

1. in pnnc. 

(as it were) certain places with his corruptions, whereof some are said XertuX lib. 5. 
to remain in the Greek text until this day. 

FulJce. The original text of the holy scriptm'e we alter Fulke, 4. 
not, either by adding, taking away, or changing of any letter 
or syllable, for any private pm'pose ; which were not only 
a thing most wicked and sacrilegious, but also vain and im- 
possible. For, seeing not only so many ancient copies of the 
original text are extant in divers places of the world, which 
we cannot, if we would, corrupt, and that the same are multi- 
phed, by printing, into so many thousand examples ; we should 
be rather mad than foohsh, if we did but once attempt such 
a matter, for maintenance of any of our opinions. As also 
it is incredible that Marcion, the mouse of Pontus, could 
corrupt all the Greek copies in the world, (as Lindanus^, of 
whom you borrowed that conceit, imagineth,) in those places 
in which he is charged by Tertulhan. For Marcion's heresy 
was not so generally received by the Greek church, that all 
men would yield unto him ; neither was Tertulhan so sound 
of judgment in the Latin church, that whatsoever he judged 
to be a corruption in Marcion", must of necessity be so 
taken. But if adding and detracting from the scripture be 
proper notes of heretics, who can purge Stephen Gardiner 
and Gregory Martin ? — the one, for adding unto a verse of 
the psalm this pronoun se, himself, to prove the carnal pre- 
sence, citing it thus, Escam se dedit timentibus evm, " He 
gave himself to be meat to them that fear him ;" whereas 

P William Lindanus, bom in 1525, at Dordrecht, a polemical writer 
of the Romish Church, who has left many works of erudition written in 
a pure style, but disfigured by the faults common to authors of that age.] 



the words of the prophet, according to the Hebrew, Greek, 
and Latin, are no more but, Escam dedit, " He hath 
given meat\" &c. — the other, in his fond book of schism-, 
citing tliis text out of 1 Cor. x. as many papists do against 
the certainty of faith. Qui stat, mdeat no cadat^ " He that 
standeth, let liim take heed he fall not ;" whereas not only 
the truth of the Greek, but even the vulgar Latin translation 
hath. Qui se existimat stare, " He that thinketh or supposeth 
that he standeth, let him take heed that he fall not." But of 
such additions and detractions, used by the Romish rats, far 
worse than the mice of Pontus, we shall have more occasion 
to speak hereafter. 

Martin, 5. Martin. Another way is, to make false translations of the scriptures, 
hereti^i'' for the maintenance of error and heresy. So did the Arians (as St Je- 
transiation. Yo\n.e^ noteth in xxvi. Esa.) read and translate Proverb viii. Dominus 
possedit. ' creavit me in initio viarum suarum, that is, "The Lord created me 
'?^i^ in the beginning of his ways," so to make Christ, the wisdom of God, 

a mere creature. St Augustine also, Lib. V. cont. Julian, c. 2, noteth it 
irepi^uj- as the interpretation of some Pelagian, Gen. iii. Fecerunt sibi vestimenta, 
fiai-a. £^j, pg).jgQ]ffi(if(i^ QY campestria, that is, " They made themselves gar- 

""'•'13 ments ;" whereas the word of the scriptm-e is, breeches or aprons, pro- 

Aug. ep. 89. per and peculiar to cover the secret parts. Again, the selfsame heretics 
pec. mer. did read falsely, Rom. v. Regnavit mors ah Adam usque ad Moysen etiam 
Im. T-ous ui) ^'^ eos qui peccaverunt in similitudinem prcevaricationis Adce ; that is, 
dfiapTii- " Death reigned from Adam to Moses, even on them that sinned after the 


similitude of the prevarication of Adam;" to maintain their heresy 
against original sin, that none were infected therewith, or subject to 
death and damnation, but by sinning actually, as Adam did. Thus did 
the old heretics. 

FuLKE, 5. Fullce. As touching false and heretical translations, which 
is the chief argument of this book, I doubt not but, by the 
grace of God, to clear our Enghsh translators from any wilful 
corruptions for the maintenance of any error or heresy ; such 

Qi "Wherein (in the sacrament of the altar) God instituted me- 
moriam mirabilium suorum, et escam se dedit timentibus euni ; that is 
to say, ' a memory of liis marvels, and gave himself meat to them 
that loviQgly fear him'." Gardiner's "Detection of the Devil's So- 
pliistrie, wherein he robbeth the unlearned people of the true beUef 
in the most blessed Sacrament of the aulter." London, 1546. fol. 69. b. 
See Psal. cxi. 4, 5.] 

P Martin's " Treatise of Schism, shewing that aU Catholics ought in 
any wise to abstain altogether from heretical Conventicles, viz. their 
Prayers, Sermons, &c." Douay, 1678.] 


as were those of the Arians and Pelagians, which Gregory 
Martin, as though he uttered some great piece of skill, doth 
so diligently express. I shall have occasion also to shew, 
that the papists themselves of our times, maintaining their 
corrupt vulgar translation against the truth of the original 
texts of Greek and Hebrew, are most guilty of such cor- 
ruption and falsification; whereof although they be not the first 
authors, yet, by obstinate defending of such errors, they may 
prove worse than they which did first commit them. For 
the authors of that vulgar translation might be deceived, 
either for lack of exact knowledge of the tongues, or by 
some corrupt and untrue copies which they followed, or else 
perhaps that which they had rightly translated, by fault of 
the writers and negligence of the times might be perverted : 
but these men frowardly justifying all errors of that trans-' 
lation, howsoever they have been brought in, do give plain 
testimony, that they are not led with any conscience of God's 
truth, but wilfully carried with purpose of maintaining their 
own errors ; lest, if they did acknowledge the error of the 
Romish church in that one point, they should not be able to 
defend any one iota of their heresy, whose chief colour is the 
credit and authority of that particular and false church, rather 
than any reason or argument out of the holy scriptures, or 
testimony of the most ancient christian and catholic church. 

Martin. What these of our days? Is it credible that being so Mahtin 6 
well warned by the condemnation and detestation of them, they also 
would be as mad and as impious as those? Heretics, gentle reader, 
be always like heretics ; and howsoever they differ in opinions or names, 
yet in this point they agree, to abuse the scriptures for their pm-pose 
by all means possibly. I will but touch four points of the five before 
mentioned, because my purpose is to stay upon the last only, and to de- 
cipher their corrupt translations. But if I would stand upon the other ^^ 
also, were it not easy to shew the manner of their* proceeding against protestants 
the scriptures to have been thus : to deny some whole books and parts ists use the 
of books, to call other some into question, to expound the rest at melm of ^^ 
their pleasure, to pick quarrels to the very origmal and canonical text, scriptures''^ 
to fester and infect the whole body of the bible with cankered trans- 
lations ? 

Fulke. It is very true, that so many heretics as pretend Fulke, 6. 
the authority of the holy scriptures, abuse the same to their 
own destruction; and no heretics worse than the antichris- 
tians or papists : as partly liath been seen already in every 


one of your five marks, and more may appear in those four 
points which you will handle in the preface, because the 
argument of your whole book is the fifth ; so that in the end 
you shall be proved no wiser with your five points, than he 
that came forth with his five eggs, and never a good of them 
all. But you ask, if it were not easy for you to shew (if 
you would stand upon them) that the protestants use all 
the said five means of defacing the scripture ? I answer, 'No, 
and that shall you see when demonstration is made, how vainly 
you have laboured in the last point ; which howsoever you 
would have it appear to be a sudden writing, of small travail, 
by interlacing a few lines here and there against M. Whitaker ^ 
against me and some other ; yet it is evident, both by Bris- 
tow's threatening and Campian's promise, that it hath been 
a work of some years unto you; wherein, beside that you 
are beholden much to Lindanus for divers quarrels against 
Calvin, and to Sir Thomas More for many cavillations against 
W. Tindal's translation, there is little worthy of so long 
study and large promises as have gone before this diligent 
discovery ; so that, if you will make the like trial in the rest, 
you shall find them as hard to prove as this last. 

Mahtin, 7. Martin. Did not Luther deny St James' epistle, and so contemn 

it, that he called it an epistle of straw, and not worthy of an apostolical 

Contrat. Spirit? Must I prove this to M. Whitaker, who would never have 

Edm. Camp, ^jgj^g^ j^. g^ vehemently in the superlative degree for shame, if he had 

Dfsc"ofme^' ^'^^ thought it more shame to grant it ? I need not go far for the 

Lather ^in^' ^^^^er : ask M. Fulke, and he will flatly confess it was so. Ask Calvin, 

Novo Test, in argum. ep. Jacohi. Ask Flaccus lUyricus, in argum. ep. Jacobi; 

Praefat. and you shall perceive it is very true. I will not send you to the 

catholic Germans and others, both of his own time and after, that wrote 

against him in the question of justification : among whom not one omit- 

teth this, being a thing so famous and infamous to the confusion of 

that arch-heretic. 

Fulke, 7. Fulke. I know not whether ever Luther denied St James' 
epistle as unworthy of an apostohcal spirit; but I believe 

[} William Whitaker, master of St John's, Cambridge, and Pro- 
fessor of Divinity, born in 1547. Cardinal Bellarmine, his antagonist, 
pronounced liim to be the most learned heretic he ever read. He 
wrote among other treatises, "Ad Rationes Decern Edmundi Campiani 
Jesuitse, quibus fretus certamen Anglicanse ecclesise ministris obtuht 
in causa fidei, responsio Gulielmi Whitakeri. Londini. 1681." Re- 
printed in Whitaker's Works, Genevse. 1610. Vol. i.] 


you may take a twelvemonth's day more to prove it, as also 
that he did so contemn it, that he called it an epistle of 
straw. But M. Whitaker, which denied it so vehemently, 
must ask of me, who most flatly confess (saith M. Martin) 
that it was so. I pray you, sir, urge me not to confess 
more than I kiiow, or ever knew. But you have confessed it 
already in two prmted books, Eetent^. p. 32. Disc, of the 
Rock, p. 307. In the first place cited there are these words: 
" But to proceed : Luther denieth the epistle of St 
James, because it is against his heresy of justifica- 
tion BY faith only. We allow not Luther, neither did he 
allow himself therein; for he retracteth it afterward." First, 
those words of Luther's denial being printed in a diverse 
letter, may testify sufficiently to every reasonable man, that 
they are the objection of Bristow, and not the confession 
of Fulke, who not simply admitteth them as true, but by 
concession proveth that if they were true, yet Luther's opinion, 
against which he himself hath written, ought not to pre- 
judice him, and much less all other men that never held that 
opinion. In the latter cited place are these words : "And as 
toucliing the epistle of St James, it is a shameless slander of 
him to say that the protestants reject it ; but we must hear 
his reason. First, Luther calleth it a straw en epistle^. So 
Luther called the pope supreme head of the church, and 
the mass a sacrifice propitiatory. If protestants be charged 
to hold whatsoever Luther sometime held, and after repented," 

\y A Retentive to stay good Christians in true faith and religion, 
against the motives of Richard Bristow. Also a discovery of the dan- 
gerous Rock of the Popish Church, commended by Nicholas Sander, 
D. of Divinity. Done by Wm. Fulk«. 1580.] 

P Campian, the Jesuit, states that the Reformer had characterised 
the Epistle of James as " contentiosam, tumidam, aridam, stramineam, 
et indignam spiritu apostolico." The Prefaces to the Argentine, Wir- 
temburg, and Francfort editions do not however contain these words, 
that of Jena alone does. Luther's opinion is exhibited in its truest 
light by the following remarks: "Epistolam banc S. Jacobi, quamvis 
rejectam a veteribus, tamen laudo, et pro utili ac commodo habeo." 
And in his treatise De Captivitate Babylonica he thus alludes to it: 
"Omitto quod hanc epistolam non esse apostoU Jacobi, nee apostolico 
spiritu dignam, multi valde probabiliter asserant." See the question 
examined more fuUy Ad Rationes Campiani. pp. 5 — 13. edit. 1581 ; 
and in Whitaker's Works, Vol. i. p. 60. edit. 1610.] 



&c. Who seeth not in these words, that I rehearse the 
objection of Saunder, which is common to him with many 
other papists ; which not discussing whether it be true or 
no, but supposing it were as Saunder and the rest of the 
papists do affirm, I shew that it is no good consequence 
to charge all protestants with Luther's private opinion, which 
perhaps he held sometime and after retracted, more than to 
charge us with all opinions of papistry wliich he did hold, 
before God opened his eyes to see the absurdity of them ? 
And yet, if he had held that opinion, and never retracted 
the same, he were not in worse case than Eusebius\ who in 
plain words affirmeth, that the same epistle is a counterfeit 
or bastard epistle, hb. 2, cap. 23. Do you not see now, how 
flatly Master Fulke confesseth that it was so? Such con- 
fessions as these are now and then extorted out of the an- 
cient fathers' writings, which are not living to expound their 
meanings. But I had thought Master Martin could have 
discerned between a suppose or concession, and an absolute 
assertion or a flat confession, especially of one whose writing 
is plain enough, and beside is alive to interpret liimself, if 
any ambiguity were therein. But be it that Master Martin 
either would not, or could not, see in my writing any tiling else 
but a flat confession of Luther's denying of St James' epistle, 
and calling it an epistle of straw : of what forehead proceedeth 
it, that he willeth Master Whitaker to ask Calvin^, in argum. 
epist. Jacobi, whether Luther so spake of that epistle? — in 
which argument Luther is not once named by Calvin ; so far 
is it that he doth testify any such thing against Luther. 
Only he saith, that some there are in these days which 
think that epistle not worthy of authority ; which could not 

P Toiavra Koi to. Kara rov ^laKajSov, ov ?; Trptonj rav ovofia^ofievav 
KadoXiKcov {TTiaToXaiv elvai Xfyerai. Icrrtov be as vodevfTM fiiv' ov ttoXXoI 
yovu rSdV naXaiiov aiiTrjs ffxvrjuovfvcrav, coy ov8e Ttjs \{yofi€in]s 'lov8a, fiias 
Koi avTTJs ovarjs Ta>v eiTTo. Xeyofievav Kado\iKa>v. oficos 8e tafiev Kai ravras 
fifTo. Tu>v XoiTrav iv TrXeicrTais 8e8r]^ocnevfiepas eKKXrjcriais. — Eusebii Pam- 
phili Eccles. Hist. Lib. ii. c. 23. Opera. Vol. i. p. G6. edit. Valesii.] 

Q Calvin's words are: "Hanc epistolam non sine certamine olini 
receptam a multis ecclesiis fuisse ex Hieronynii Eusebiique testimonio 
notum est. Sunt etiam hodie nonnuUi, qui earn auctoritate dignam non 
censeant. Ego tamen, quia nuUam ejus repudiandae satis justam causam 
video, libenter cam sine controversia amplector." — Argumentum cum 
Job. Calvini Commentariis. p. 91. edit. Stephan. 1560.] 


be understood of Luther, who long before Calvin wrote that 
argument 'had forsaken that opinion, if ever he held any 
such ; as all those Dutch bibles and testaments of Luther's 
translation, m which those words so much baited at, and so 
much sought for, are omitted, do give sufficient testimony. 
What Flaccus lilyricus^ reporteth, who perhaps held that 
opinion himself, and would father it upon Luther, I have 
neither opportunity to seek, nor care to know. But how 
great a matter it is, that all the popish Germans, and other, 
who have written against Luther, do so spitefully gnaw upon, 
I have learned at length by relation of Master Whitaker, 
whom you send to ask of me ; who, after long search and 
many editions turned over, at the length hghted upon a 
Dutch testament, by likelihood one of the first that Luther 
did set forth in the German tongue, in which he findeth 
neither denial of St James' epistle to be canonical, nor af- 
firmation that it is unworthy of an apostolical spirit; no, 
nor that whereof there hath been so much babbhng of all 
the papists, that he calleth it an epistle of straw simply 
and in contempt, but only in comparison of the epistles of 
Paul and Peter, and other books of the new testament ; the 
excellency of which, one above another, after he hath shewed 
in sundry degrees, at last he saith, the epistle of James in 
comparison of these is straw, or like straw : which he saith 
not in respect of the credit or authority thereof, but in regard 
of the argument or matter handled therein ; which all wise and 
godly men will confess to be not so excellent and necessary, 
as the matter of the holy gospels and epistles of some other 
of the apostles, namely of Paul, Peter, and John. Our 
Saviour Christ himself, John iii. 12, calleth the doctrine of 
regeneration, in such plain manner as he uttered it to Nico- 
demus, earthly things, in comparison of other greater mysteries, 
which he could have expressed in more heavenly and spu^itual 
sort. " If I have spoken to you," saith he, " of earthly 
tilings, and you have not beheved, how, if I should speak to 
you of heavenly things, will you beheve?" Were not he an 
honest and a wise man, that upon these words of Christ, 

P Mathias Flack, or (as the name was latinised, from Albona in Istria, 
a part of ancient Illyria, where he was bom in 1521,) Flaccus Illyricus, 
was a famous protestant theologian. He studied under Luther and Me- 
lancthon, and became a most formidable enemy to the Church of Rome.] 

r 1 2 



spoken in comparison, would conclude by his authority, that 
regeneration were a contemptible matter, a thing not spi- 
ritual, not heavenly, but simply and altogether earthly ? And 
yet with as good reason, for ought I see or can learn of 
Luther's words concerning this matter, he might so infer, as 
the papists do enforce the hke against Luther. Wherefore it is 
nothing else but a famous and infamous cavillation, to the 
confusion of all the papists which write against Luther, that 
no one of them omitteth upon so false and frivolous a ground 
to slander liim so heinously, and to charge all protestants 
with his assertion so enviously : wliich, if it were his, should 
not be so evil as other cathoUc writers have affirmed of 
tliat epistle, and therefore not sufficient to charge him, and 
much less others, with heresy ; but being not his simple affir- 
mation, yet because it hath been offensively taken, he himself 
hath put it out and given it over. what a stir would 
they keep, if they had any weighty matter of truth to bur- 
then him withal ! 

Martin, 8. Martin. To let this pass : Toby, Ecclesiasticus, and the Machabees, 

Cone. Cart. 3. are they not most certainly rejected? And yet they were allowed and 

can. 4/. received for canonical by the same authority that St James' epistle was. 

Argu. in This epistle the Calvinists are content to admit, because so it pleased 

Calvin : those books they reject, because so also it pleased him. And 

why did it so please Calvin ? Under pretence forsooth, that they were 

once doubted of, and not taken for canonicaL But is that the true 

Whjtak.i cause indeed ? How do they then receive St James' epistle as canoni- 

Fbid.' cal, having been before doubted of also, yea, as they say, rejected ? 

FuLKE, 8. Fulke. You may well let it pass, for it is not worth the 
time you spend in writing of it ; and if you had been wise, 
you would utterly have omitted it. But what say you of 
Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, and the Machabees, most certainly by 
us rejected? They were allowed (you say) for canonical by 
the same authority that St James' epistle was. And tliink 
you that St James' epistle was never allowed for canonical 
before the third coimcil of Carthage ? For of the other it 
is certain, they were never received by the chm^ch of the 
Israehtes before Christ's coming, nor of the apostolic and 
pi'imitive church for more than 300 years after, as both Eu- 
sebius out of Origenes, and the council of Laodicea, Can. 59. 
confirmed afterward by the sixth general council of Constan- 

\} Whitakeri ad Rationes Campiani Responsic] 


tinople, sheweth for the Greek church, and St Jerome in ^^^- « cap- 
Prologo Galeato^ for the Latin church. As for the provmcial 
council of Carthage, holden by forty-four bishops of Africa, 
if we were bound to receive it for these books, we must 
also acknowledge five books of Salomon, which in the same 
council are authorised, whereas the church never knew but 
of three. And although the book of Wisdom should be as- 
cribed to Salomon, there could be but four. Again, how 
they understand the word canonical, it may be gathered both 
out of the words of the same canon, where they give none 
other reason of the approbation of all those books of scrip- 
ture, but that they have received them of their fathers to be 
read in the church ; and also out of St Augustine, who was De doot. 
one present at the same council ; which after he hath declared 2, cap. 8. 
how a man should discern the canonical scriptures from other 
writings by following the authority of the catholic churches, 
especially those that have deserved to have apostolic sees, 
and to receive their epistles, he addeth further : Tenehit igitur 
hunc modum in scripturis canonicis, ut eas quce ah omnibus 
accipiuntur ecclesiis catholicis, prceponaf eis quas qucedam 
non accipiunt ; in eis vero quw non accipiuntur ah omni- 
bus^ prwponat eas, quas plures gravioresque accipiunt^ eis 
quas pauciores minorisque auctoritatis ecclesioe tenent. Si 
autem alias invenerit a plurihus, alias a qraviorihus haheri, 
quanquam hoc invenire non possit, asqualis tamen auctoritatis 
eas hahendas puto. Totus autem canon scripturarum, in quo 
istam considerationem versandam dicimus, his I'lbris continetur. 
He shall hold therefore tliis mean in the canonical scrip- 
tures, that he prefer those which are received of all catholic 
churches, before those scriptm-es wliich some churches do 
not receive. But in those which are not received of all, let 
him prefer those scriptures which the greater number and 
graver churches do receive, before those which chm'ches fewer 
in number and of less authority do hold. But if he shall 

P Non idem ordo est apud Grsecos, qui integi'e sapiunt et fidem 
rectam sectantur, epistolarum septem, quse canonicse nuncupantur, qui 
in Latinis codicibus invenitur. Quod quia Petrus primus est in numero 
apostolorum, primae sint etiam ejus epistolae in ovdine ceterarum. Sed 
sicut evangelistas dudum ad veritatis lineam correximus ; ita has proprio 
ordini, Deo nos juvante, reddidimus. Est enim prima earum una Jacobi; 
Petri duae ; Johannis tres ; et Judse una. — Hieronym. Prolog. Septem 
Epistolarum Canonicarum. Opera. Vol. i. p. 1667.] 

2 — 2 


find some scriptures to be had of fewer churches and other 
some of graver churches, although you cannot find this thing, 
yet I think they are to he accounted of equal authority. 
Now the whole canon of scriptures in which we say this 
consideration must be occupied is contained in these books : 
Five books of Moses, that is Genesis, Exodus, &c. By this 
saying of Augustine it is manifest, that he calleth canonical 
scriptures, not only those books that ought of necessity to 
be received of all churches ; but also such as were received 
of some, and of some were not ; in which number were these 
books of Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, and the Machabees, wliich 
by his own rule were not to be received as of absolute and 
sovereign authority, because the apostolic churches of Asia 
and Europe, and those of gravest authority, among which 
was the church of Rome in that time, did not receive them ; 
as witnesseth not only St Jerome, a priest of Rome, but 
also Ruffinus of Aquileia, in symbolo^, who both declare what 
books were received in their churches as canonical, and of 
irrefragable authority to build principles of faith upon them, 
and what books were admitted only to be read for instruc- 
tion of manners. And therefore, according to the rule of 
Augustine and testimony of the ancient fathers, and because 
it consenteth with the rest of the scriptures, and not for 
Calvin's pleasure, we receive the epistle of St James, though 
it hath not been always and of all churches received. Con- 
cerning the name of Calvinists, as of all other nick-names, 
that it pleaseth you of your charity to bestow upon us, it 
shall suffice to protest once for all, that we acknowledge 
none other name of our profession, but Christians and catho- 
hcs ; and that we have neither received that epistle, nor 
rejected the other, because it pleased Calvin so. This may 
Anno 1537' ^6^^® ^^r a clcar demonstration, that in the first English^ 

\} Sciendum tamen est, quod et alii libri sunt qui non canonici, sed 
ecclesiastici a majoribus appellati sunt : ut est Sapientia Salomonis, et 
alia Sapientia quae dicitur filii Syrach, qui liber apud Latinos hoc ipso 
generali vocabulo Ecclesiasticus appellatur; quo vocabulo non auctor 
libelli, sed scrip turae qualitas cognominata est. Ejusdem ordinis est 
libellus Tobife, et Judith, et Machabaeorum libri. — Expositio in Sym- 
bolum Apostolorum Ruffini. p. 397, 398. ed. Aid. 1563.] 

P In the bible of 1537, known under the name of the translator, 
Thomas Matthew, tliis is the case. Also in Coverdale's bible of 1537, 
4to., imprynted in Southwarke by James Nycolson.] 


bibles that were printed under the name of Thomas Matthew, 
before Calvin wrote any word of the rejection of those books, 
or of receiving of the other, they are called Apocrypha, and 
printed with other of that mark by themselves, and the epistle 
of St James without any question acknowledged to be one of 
the canonical epistles ; whereas Calvin's institution was first 
printed anno 1536, and his argument upon St James' epistle, 
1551. You may see what honest dealing the papists use to 
bring the truth into discredit, and the professors thereof into 
hatred with the simple and unlearned people, bearing them in 
hand, that we have no cause to receive or refuse books of scrip- 
tm'e, but Calvin's pleasure. But the God of truth will one day 
reward these impudent hars and shameless slanderers. 

Well, let us now see under what pretence it pleased Cal- . 
vin to reject these books : " Under pretence forsooth, (saith 
Martin,) that they were once doubted of, and not taken for 
canonical." I pray you. Sir, where doth Calvin pretend that 
only cause ? In his Instit. hb. iii. c. 5. sec. 8, he allegeth 
divers other causes touching the books of Machabees, as every 
man that will may read. Shame you nothing to forge such 
manifest untruths, and that in such matters as you may be 
convinced in them by ten thousand witnesses? What credit 
shall be given to you in matters that consist upon your own 
bare testimony, when you force not to feign of other men that 
wherein every man may reprove you ? And as for the only 
pretence you speak of, Calvin doth so httle esteem it, that 
notwithstanding the same, he doubteth not to receive the 
epistle of St James, because it is agreeable to the whole body 
of the canonical scripture; as, if you had read his argument 
upon that epistle, you might easUy have perceived. 

Martin. Mark, gentle reader, for thy soul's sake, and thou shalt Martin, 9. 
find that heresy, and only heresy, is the cause of their denying these m.' w^'ita- 
books ; so far, that against the orders and hierarchies and particular worfs'con-^ 
patronages of angels one of them writeth thus in the name of the th™"own 
rest : " We pass not for that Raphael of Toby, neither do we acknow- ^o'^k'^^„hich 
ledge those seven angels which he speaketh of; all this is far from ^|f''^°'^''^'{jj 
canonical scriptures, tliat the same Raphael recordeth, and savoureth of Tobit and 

,, Ecclesiasti- 

I wot not what superstition. ' Against free-will thus : " I little care cus to be 
for the place of Ecclesiasticus, neither will I believe free-will, though holy scrip- 
he affirm an hundred times, that before men is life and death." And other. Do 

\y Ad Rationes Campiani Responsio, p. 17.] 


thev read against prayer for the dead, and intercession of saints, thus : " As for 

churches the book of the Machabees, I do care less for it than for the other. 

and super- Judas' dream concerning Onias I let pass as a dream." This is their 

books'for reverence of the scriptures, Avhich have universally been reverenced for 

ture oris Canonical in the church of God above 1100 years. Con. Cart. 3. and 

that thus'*" particularly of many fathers long before, Aug. de doct. Christ. Lib. ii. 

disfjraceth q^ g^ 
their order 

of^daiiyser- iP^/i^g. The mouth that lieth kUleth the soul. The reader 

FuLKE, 9. jnay think you have small care of his soul's health, when 
by such impudent lying you declare that you have so small 
regard of your own. But what shall he mark ? " That 
heresy, &c." You were best say that Eusebius, Jerome, Ruf- 
fine, and all the churches in their times, were heretics, and 
that only heresy was the cause of their denial of these books. 
For such reasons as moved them move us, and something 
also their authority. But how prove you that only heresy 
moveth us to reject them? Because M. Whitaker against 
the orders, and hierarchies, and particular patronages of 
angels, writeth in the name of the rest, that " we pass not," 
&c. Take heed, lest upon your bare surmise you behe him, 
where you say he writeth in the name of the rest ; as in the 
next section following you say, he writeth in the name of both 
the universities, for which I am sure he had no commission 
from either of them ; although he did write that wliich may 
well be avouched by both the universities ; yet I know his 
modesty is such, as he will not presume to be advocate for 
both the universities, and much less for the whole church, 
except he were lawfully called thereto. This is a common 
practice of you papists, to bear the world in hand, that what- 
soever is Avritten by any of us in defence of the truth, is set 
forth in the name of all the rest, as though none of us could 
say more in any matter than any one of us hath written ; or 
that if any one of us chance to slip in any small matter, 
though it be but a wrong quotation, you might open your 
wide slanderous mouths against the whole church for one 
man's particular offence. Now touching any thing that M. 
Whitaker hath written, you shall find him sufficient to main- 
tain it against a stronger adversary than you are ; and there- 
fore I wUl meddle the less in his causes. And for the orders 
and patronage or protection of angels by God's appointment, 
we have sufficient testimony in the canonical scriptures, that 
we need not the uncertain report of Tobie's book to instruct 


US what to think of them. But as for the hierarchies and 
patronage of angels, that many of you papists have imagined 
and written of, neither the canonical scriptures, nor yet the apo- 
cryphal books now in controversy, are sufficient to give you 
warrant. The like I say of free will, prayer for the dead, 
and intercession of saints. But it grieveth you that those 
apocryphal scriptures, which have been universally received 
for canonical in the church of God above 1100 years, should 
find no more reverence among us. Still your mouth runneth 
over. For ia the time of the canon of the council of Car- 
thage 3. which you quote, these books were not universally 
reverenced as canonical. And Augustine himself, speaking 
of the book of Machabees, Cont. 2. Gaud.^ Ep. c. 23. con- 
fesseth that the Jews account it not as the Law, and the 
Prophets, and the Psalms, to which our Lord giveth testi- 
mony as to his witnesses, saying, "It behoveth that all things 
should be fulfilled which are written in the Law, and in the 
Prophets, and in the Psalms concerning me ; but it is received 
of the church not unprofitably, if it be soberly read or heard." 
This writeth St Augustine, when he was pressed with the 
authority of that book by the Donatists, which defended that 
it was lawful for them to kill themselves by example of 
Razis, who is by the author of that book commended for 
that fact. He saith, " it is received not unprofitably," and 
immediately after, "especially for those Machabees that suffered 
patiently horrible persecution for testimony of God's rehgion, 
to encourage Cliristians by their example." Finally, he 
addeth a condition of the receiving it, "if it be soberly read 
or heard." These speeches declare, that it was not received 

[} Et hanc quidem scripturam, quas'appellatur MachabjEorum, non 
habent Judaei sicut legem et prophetas et psalmos, quibus Dominus 
testimonium perliibet tamquam testibus suis, dicens, Oportebat impleri 
omnia quse scripta sunt in lege et prophetis et in psalmis de me: sed 
recepta est ab ecclesia non inutiliter, si sobrie legatur vel audiatur, 
maxima propter illos Machabaeos qui pro Dei lege sicut veri martyres 
a persecutoribus tam indigna atque horrenda perpessi sunt; ut etiam 
hinc populus Christianus adverteret, quoniam non sunt condignse pas- 
siones hujus temporis ad futuram gloriam quae revelabitur in nobis, pro 
quibus passus est Christus, si tanta patientissime pertulerunt jiro lege 
quam dedit Deus per famulum hominibus illis pro quibus nondum tra- 
diderat Filium. — Augustin. contra Gaudentium Donatist. Episc. Lib. i. 
cap. 38. Opera. Vol. ix. p. 656-6.] 


without all controversy as the authentical word of God : for 
then should it be received necessarily, and because it is God's 
word especially, and howsoever it be read or heard, it is 
received of the church, not only necessarily, but also profit- 
ably. Beside this, even the decree of Gelasius, which was 
near 100 years after that council of Carthage, alloweth but 
one book of the Machabees. Wherefore the universal reve- 
rence that is boasted of cannot be justified. 

But M. Whitaker is charged in the margin to condemn 
the service-book, which appointeth these books of Toby and 
Ecclesiasticus to be read for holy scripture as the other. 
And where find you that in the service-book, M. Martin? 
Can you speak nothing but untruths ? If they be appointed 
to be read, are they appointed to be read for holy scripture, 
and for such scripture as the other canonical books are ? 
The service-book appointeth the litany, divers exhortations 
and prayers, yea, homihes to be read : are they therefore to 
be read for holy and canonical scriptures ? But you ask, Do 
they read in their churches apocryphal and superstitious books 
for holy scripture ? No, verily. But of the name apocryphal 
I must distinguish, which sometimes is taken for all books 
read of the church, wliich are not canonical ; sometime for 
such books only as are by no means to be suffered, but are to 
be hid or abolished. These books therefore in controversy, 
with other of the same sort, are sometimes called Hagiographa, 
holy writings, as of St ievornQ prcefat. in lib. Tobiw; some- 
times Ecclesiastica, Ecclesiastical writings, and so are they 
inexposi- called of Ruffinus. Because (saith he) they were appointed 

tione sym- _ ^ / u j. ± 

^"- by our elders to be read in the churches, but not to be 

brought forth to confirm authority of faith : but other scrip- 
tures they named apocryphal, wliich they would not have to 
be read in the churches. So saith St Jerome in prcsfat. in 
Proverb. " Even as the church readeth indeed the books of 
Judith, Tobias, and the Machabees, but yet receiveth them 
not among the canonical scriptures; so let it read these two 
books (of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom) for the edifying of the 
people, not for the confirmation of the authority of ecclesi- 
astical doctrines." These ancient writers shall answer for our 
service-book, that although it appoint these writings to be 
read, yet it doth not appoint them to be read for canonical 
scriptures. Albeit they are but sparingly read, by order of 


our service-book, which for the Lord's day, and other festival 
days, commonly appointeth the first lesson out of the canonical 
scriptures. And as for superstition, although M. Whitaker 
say, that some one thing savoureth of I know not what super- 
stition, he doth not by and by condemn the whole book for 
superstitious, and altogether unworthy to be read ; neither can 
he thereby be proved a puritan, or a disgracer of the order of 
daUy service, 

Martin. As for parts of books, do they not reject certain pieces MAinrN, 
of Daniel and of Hester, because they are not in the Hebrew, which ^^• 
reason St Augustine rejecteth; or because they were once doubted of 
by certain of the fathers 1 by which reason some part of St Mark's 
and St Luke's gospel might now also be called in controversy, spe- 
cially if it be true which M. Whitaker by a figurative speech more 
than insinuateth, That he cannot see by what right that which once p. lo, 
was not in credit should by time win authority. Forgetting himself 
by and by, and in the very next lines admitting St James' epistle, m. Whita- 
though before doubted of, for canonical scriptures, imless they receive ^^^ " ^' 
it but of their courtesy, and so may receive it when it shall please 
them, which must needs be gathered of his words, as also many other 
notorious absurdities, contradictions, and dumb blanks. Which only 
to note were to confute M. Whitaker by himself, being the answer 
for both universities. 

Fulke. As for pieces of Daniel and of Esther, we reject Fulke,10. 
none ; but only we discern that which was written by Daniel in 
deed, from that wliich is added by Theodotion the false Jew, and 
that which was written by the Spirit of God of Esther, from 
that which is vainly added by some Greekish counterfeiter. But 
the reason why we reject those patches (you say) is because 
they are not in the Hebrew, wliich reason St Augustine re- 
jecteth. Here you cite St Augustine at large, without quota- 
tion in a matter of controversy. But if we may trust you that 
St Augustine rejecteth this reason, yet we may be bold upon 
St Jerome's authority to reject whatsoever is not found in 
the canon of the Jews, written in Hebrew or Chaldee : for 
whatsoever was such, St Jerome did thrust through with a 
spit or obelisk, as not worthy to be received. Witness hereof 
St Augustine himself, Epist. ad Hier} 8 and 10, in which he 

\} Petimus ergo, et nobiscum petit omnis Africanarum ecclesiarum 
studiosa societas, ut interpretandis eorum libris, qui Grsce scripturas 
nostras quam optime tractaverunt, curara atque operam impendere non 
graveris. Potes enim efficere, ut nos quoque habcamus tales illos viros. 


dissuaded him from translating the Bcriptures of the Old 
Testament out of the Hebrew tongue, after the seventy inter- 
preters ; whose reasons as they were but frivolous, so they 
are derided by St Jerome, who, being learned in the Hebrew 
and Chaldee tongues, refused to be taught by Augustine, that 
was ignorant in them, what was to be done in translations out 
of them. Also Jerome himself^ testifieth, that Daniel in the 
Hebrew hath neither the story of Susanna, nor the hymn of 
the three children, nor the fable of Bel and the Dragon : 
wliich we, (saith he,) because they are dispersed throughout 
the whole world, have added, setting a spit before them, 
which thrusteth them through, lest we should seem among 
the ignorant to have cut off a great part of the book. The 
like he writeth of the vain additions that were in the vulgar 
edition unto the book of Esther, both in the preface, and 
after the end of that which he translated out of the Hebrew. 
There are other reasons also, beside the authority of St Jerome, 
that move us not to receive them. As that in the story of 
Susanna, magistrates and judgment of life and death are 
attributed to the Jews being in captivity of Babylon, which 
hath no similitude of truth. Beside, out of the first chapter 

et unum potissimum, quern tu libentius in tuis Uteris sonas. De ver- 
tendis autem in Latinam linguam Sanctis Uteris canonicis laborare te 
noUem, nisi eo modo quo Job interpretatus es ; ut signis adhibitis quid 
inter banc tuam et Septuagiuta, quorum est gravissima auctoritas, inter- 
pretationcm distet, appareat. — Augustin. ad Hieron. Ep. xxviii. Opera. 
Vol. 11. p. 46. 

Ego sane te mallem Grsecas potius canonicas nobis interpretari scrip- 
turas, quae Septuaginta interpretum perhibentur. Perdurum erit enim, 
si tua interpretatio per muUas ecclesias frequentius coeperit lectitari, 
quod a Graecis ecclesiis Latinse ecclesiae dissonabunt, maxime quia facUe 
contradictor convincitur Graeco prolato Ubro, id est liaguae notissimae. — 
Augustin. Lxxi. Epist. ad Hieron. Opera. Vol. ii. p. 160.] 

[^ Cui et Eusebius et ApoUinarius pari sententia responderunt: Susannae 
Belisque ac Draconis fabulas non contineri in Hebraico ; sed partem esse 
prophetiae Abacuc filii Jesu de tribu Levi, sicut juxta lxx. interpretes 
in titulo ejusdem Belis fabulae ponitur: Homo quidam eratsacercbs, nomine 
Daniel, filius Abda. conviua regis Babylonis : quum Danielem et tres pue- 
ros de tribu Juda fuisse sancta scriptura testetur. Unde et nos ante 
annos plurimos quum verteremus Danielem, has visiones obelo prtenota- 
vimus, significantes eas in Hebraico non haberi. — Hieronymi Explanatio 
in Danielem Prophetam. Opera. Tom. i. p. 1074. Augustini Epist. ad 
Hieronymum, lxx. p. 611. Hieronym. Opera. Vol. iv. Hieronymi 
Epist. ad Augustinum, lxxi v. pp. 626, 627.] 



of the true Daniel it is manifest, that Daniel being a young 
man was carried captive into Babylon in the days of Nebu- 
chadnezzar ; but in this counterfeit story Daniel is made a 
young child in the time of Astyages, which reigned immediately 
before Cyrus of Persia. Likewise in the story of Bel and the 
Dragon, Daniel is said to have lived with the same king 
Cyrus ; and after, when he was cast into the lions' den, the 
prophet Habakkuk was sent to him out of Jewry, who pro- 
phesied before the first coming of the Chaldees, and therefore 
could not be alive in the days of Cyrus, which was more than 
seventy years after. The additions unto the book of Esther, 
in many places, bewray the spirit of man ; as that they are 
contrary to the truth of the story, containing vain repetitions, 
and amphfications of that which is contained in the true 
history ; and that which most manifestly convinceth the for- 
gery, that in the epistle of Artaxerxes, cap. 16, Haman is 
called a Macedonian, which in the true story is termed an 
Agagite, that is an Amalekite, whereas the Macedonians had 
nothing to do with the Persians many years after the death 
of Esther and Haman. I omit that in the cap. 15, ver. 12, 
the author maketh Esther to lie unto the king, in saying that 
his countenance was fuU of all grace ; or else he heth liimself, 
V. 17, where he saith, the king beheld her in the vehemency 
of his anger, and that he was exceeding terrible. 

As for other reasons, which you suppose us to follow, be- 
cause these parcels were once doubted of by certain of the 
fathers, it is a reason of your own making, and therefore you 
may confute it at your pleasure. But " if that be true, which 
Master Wliitaker by a figurative speech doth more than 
insinuate, part of St Mark's and St Luke's gospel may also 
be called in controversy." Why, what saith M. Whitaker? 
Marry, " that he cannot see by what right that which once 
was not in credit should by time win authority." But 
when, I pray you, was any part of St Mark or St Luke out 
of credit? If any part were of some person doubted of, 
doth it follow that it was not at all in credit? You reason 
profoundly, and gather very necessarily: as hkewise, that 
he " forgetteth himself in the very next lines, admitting St 
James' epistle (though before doubted of) for canonical." 
Will ye say that St James' epistle was once not in credit, 
or not worthy of credit (for that is his plain meaning), be- 



cause it was doubted of, yea, rejected of some ? Yea, you say 
it " must needs be gathered of his words," that we receive it 
but of courtesy, and so may refuse it when it pleaseth us. 
Demonstrate this in a syllogism out of his words, if you can, 
or all the whole rabble of Rheims, if you be able. For my 
part I can but marvel at your bold assertions, and abhor 
your impudent enforcements. As for other contradictions, 
notorious absurdities, dumb blanks, and I know not what 
other monsters you feign unto him, without all proof or par- 
ticular declaration, all wise men see how easy a matter it is 
to rail and slander in generals ; and when vou dare come to 
particulars, I doubt not but the world shall see your vanity 
so detected by M. Whitaker himself, that you shall have httle 
joy thus insolently to deface liis godly and learned writings. 
It had been more than time that his book had been confuted, 
wliich hath been abroad a year and a half almost \ if you can 
with such facility, by only noting such matters, shew that he 
confuteth himself. But somewhat you must say afar off, to 
save your credit with your disciples, to keep them play for 
the time ; while with long study and great travaU you are 
crowding out great trifles. 



In the argu- 
ment bib. 
an. 1579. 

t) irpoi 



Martin. For the second point, which is not the gross denial of 
books, but yet calHng of them in question, moving scruples about them, 
and diminishing their authority and credit, I will go no further than 
St Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews; which I will not ask why they doubt 
of, or rather think it not to be St Paul's, for they will tell me, be- 
cause it was once in doubt (not considering that it was in like man- 
ner doubted whether it were canonical, and yet they will not now 
deny but it is canonical) ; but I must ask them, and request them to 
make a reasonable answer, why in their English bible of the years 
1579 and 1580, they presume to leave out St Paul's name out of the 
very title of the said epistle, which name is in the Greek, and in 
Beza's Latin translation, both which they profess to follow. See the 
title of the New Testament, anno 1580. Doth not the title tell them 
that it is St Paul's ? Why seek they further ; or why do they change 
the title, striking out St Paul's name, if they meant to deal simply 
and sincerely ? and what an heretical peevishness is this, because Beza 
telleth them of one obscure Greek copy that hath not Paul's name, 
and' only one, that they will rather follow it, than all other copies both 
Greek and Latin ! I report me to all indifferent men of common sense, 
whether they do it not ta diminish the credit of the epistle. 

[' Whitaker's Answer to Campian was printed in 1581.] 


Fulke. Now concerning the second point, which is caUing Fulke, 
of some books into controversy, or moving scruples about them, l^- 
to diminish their credit or authority, whether you be guilty 
of that crime rather than we, I have somewhat noted before. 
But with what evidence you are able to charge us, it cometh 
now to be considered: you will go no further than the epistle 
to the Hebrews^. You may be ashamed to have gone so far; 
for of all books of the New Testament, there is none that 
we might worse spare to confound your blasphemous heresies 
than that epistle, which is the very mall to beat into powder 
the abominable idol of your mass, and your sacrilegious priests 
hood serving to the same. Wherefore it is without all colour 
that you charge us to seek to diminish the credit of that 
epistle. But you " will not ask why we doubt of, or rather 
think it not to be St Paul's, because we will tell you, that it 
was once in doubt." If you acknowledge that the author of 
this epistle was once in question, you clear us of moving 
scruples about it, or calling it in question, which was your 
first charge. Let Eusebius, Jerome, and other ancient writers, Euseb. itb. 

. , 6. cap. 25. 

bear that blame, if it be blame- worthy to tell what other men's ^'X^J""- 
opinions have been in such a matter ; some holding that it 'o"*- ^• 
was written by St Luke, some by St Barnabas, some by St 
Clemens. But you must wit, if you will, that they which at 
this day doubt of the writer thereof, or else think it not of 
St Paul's penning, have other reasons to lead them, than 

P The argument to " the Epistle to the Hebrewes," in the edition of 
the bible printed at Edinburgh, 1579, (which is a reprint of the Geneva 
bible of 1560,) commences thus, as indeed it does in the edition of 1557» 
and those printed by Barker, 1578, and 1582. "Forasmuche as divers, 
bothe of the Greke writers and Latine, witnesse, that the ■wi'iter of 
this epistle for juste causes wolde not "have his name knowen, it were 
curiosite of our parte to labour muche therein. For seeing the Spirit of 
God is the autor thereof, it diminisheth nothing the autoritie, althogh 
we knowe not with what penne he wrote it. Whether it were Paul (as 
it is not like), or Luke, or Barnabas, or Clement, or some other, his 
chiefe purpose is to persuade unto the Ebrewes, (whereby he principally 
meaneth them that abode at Jerusalem, and under them all the rest of 
the Jewes,) that Christ Jesus was not only the redemer, but also that at 
his comming all ceremonies must have an end," &c. 

In Coverdale's bible, 1537, it bears the title of St Paul's Epistle to the 
Hebrews; in Matthew's bible, 1537; in Tavemer's, 1539; in Day's bible, 
1651 ; in the Bishops' bible, 1584, and in Cranmer's bible, 1562. The omis- 
sioil seems to be peculiar to the Anglo-Genevese Version.] 

In Isai. lib. 
.'1. cap. fi. in 


only because it was doubted of. For beside those reasons 
which they had, which of old time doubted of the writer 
thereof, as the diversity of the style, and inscription thereof, 
and manner of reasoning, they have also observed something 
out of the epistle itself, which seemeth to argue, that it was 
not written by St Paul : as that in the beginnuig of the 2nd 
chapter he saith, " The doctrine of salvation was confirmed 
to us by them that heard it, after it was first spoken by the 
Lord himself;" which seemeth to agree with the profession of 
St Luke in the beginning of his gospel ; whereas St Paul 
denieth " that he learned his gospel of men, but only by reve- 
lation of Jesus Christ." Gal. i. 12. But of all them that 
doubt, or think it not to be St Paul's epistle, there is not 
one that doubteth of the authority thereof, but that it is 
equal with the epistle to the Komans, or the gospel of St 
John : although m the Latin church, as St Jerome^ testifieth, 
Matt'.^iib. 5. it hath been doubted whether it were canonical. The cause 

cap. ili. 

[} Nam et Paulus in epistola sua quae scribitur ad Hebrseos (licet 
de ea multi Latinorum dubitent). — Comment. Hieronymi in Matthaei 
cap. 26. Opera. Vol. iv. pp. 125, 126. 

Ac primum solvenda est ilia quaestio, quae nobis objici potest : quare 
Apostolus Paulus cum Hebraeis disputans non juxta Hebraicum, quod 
rectum esse cognoverat, sed juxta lxx. sit loquutus? Evangelistam 
Lucam tradunt veteres ecclesiae tractatores medicine artis fuisse scien- 
tissimum ; et magis Graecas literas scisse quam Hebraeas. Unde et 
sermo ejus tam in Evangelio, quam in Actibus Apostolorum, id est, 
in utroque volumine comptior est, et secularem redolet eloquentiam ; 
magisque testimoniis Graecis utitur quam Hebraeis. Matthaeus autem 
et Johannes, quorum alter HebriEO, alter Graeco sermone evangelia 
texuerunt, testimonia de Hebraico proferunt : ut est illud, Ex JEgypto 
vocavi filium meum. Et, Quoniam Nazareus vocabitur. Et, Flumina 
de ventre ejus fluent aqiue vivce. Et, Videhunt in quern compunxerunt, 
et cetera his similia. Pauli quoque idcirco ad Hebraeos Epistolae con- 
tradicitur, quod ad Hebraeos scribens utatur testimoniis quae in Hebraeis 
voluniinibus non habentur. Quod si aliquis dixerit, Hebraeos libros 
postea a Judaeis esse falsatos, audiat Origenem quid in octavo volumine 
explanationum Isaiae huic respondeat quaestiunculae, quod nunquam 
Dominus et Apostoli, qui cetera crimina arguunt in Scribis et Pharisaeis, 
de hoc crimine quod erat maximum reticuissent. Sin autem dixerint, 
post adventum Domini Salvatoris et praedicationem Apostolorum libros 
Hebraeos fuisse falsatos, cachinnum tenere non potero, ut Salvator et 
Evangelistae et Apostoli ita testimonia protulerint, ut Judaei postea fal- 
saturi erant. — Commentar. Hieronymi in Isaite Prophet. Lib. iii. cap. 6. 
Opera. Vol. iii. pp. 6-3, 64.] 


seemeth to be the heresy of the Novatians, which abused a 
text out of the 6th chapter against remission of sins committed 
after grace received, which we shew was no sufficient cause 
to refuse so divine an epistle, seeing the apostle speaketh 
not of particular faults, which are common to the faitliful 
oftentimes every day, but of an utter apostasy and falling 
clean away from the truth of the gospel once known and 
professed into an horrible contempt and persecuting of the 
same. But we must " make you a reasonable answer, why in 
the EngUsh bibles printed 1579 and 1580, we presume to 
leave out St Paul's name out of the very title of the said 
epistle ; which name is in the Greek and Beza's Latin trans- 
lation, wliich we profess to follow." I answer without any 
presumption, that that which is uncertain we spare to affirm.^ 
Example we have, not only that ancient Greek copy whereof 
Beza speaketh, which leaveth out the name of Paul, but also 
divers printed books in which that name is left out. Beside 
it is certain, that title was not of ancient time universally 
added. For St Jerome, in Catalogo scriptorum ecclesiast., after 
he hath recited all the epistles of St Paul, at length he cometh 
to this epistle, Epistola autem quce fertur ad Hebrceos^ &c. 
But the epistle wliich is called unto the Hebrews, is not 
thought to be his, for the difference of the style and speech; 
but either written by Barnabas, as TertulUan^ holdeth, or by 
Luke the Evangehst, as some men tliink, or by Clemens, that 
after was bishop of the Roman church, whom they say to 
have ordered and adorned the sentences of Paul in his own 
speech, or else truly, because Paul did write unto the Hebrews, 
and because of the envy of his name among them he cut off 
the title in the beginning of the salutation. These things 
considered, what need those tragical exclamations in so trifling 
a matter ? " Doth not the title tell it is St Paul's ? why 
strike they out St Paul's name ? what an heretical peevishness 
is this !" For lack of good matter, you are driven to loud 
clamours against us ; but I will even conclude in your own 

P Exstat enim et Bamabse titulus ad Hebraeos, adeo satis aucto- 
ritatis viro, ut quern Paulus juxta se constituent in abstinentia tenore: 
Aut ego solus et Barnabas non habemus hoc operandi potestatem 1 Et 
utique receptior apud ecclesias epistola Barnabse illo apocrypho pastore 
moechorum. — Tertullian. de Pudicitia. Opera, p. 741. edit. Rigaltii, 
1641. cap. 20. edit. Semler. Vol. iv. p. 427.] 


words : " I report me to all indifferent men of common sense, 
whether we do it to diminish the credit of the epistle," which 
of all St Paul's epistles we might least miss, when we come 
to dispute against your popish sacrifice and sacrificing priest- 
hood ; or whether you do not craftily move a scruple in the 
minds of simple persons, to make them doubt of the authority 
of that epistle, (whose double cannon-shot you are not able 
to bear when it is thundered out against you,) imder colour 
that it is not of sound credit among ourselves, that use it 
against you ; which of all the lies that ever Satan invented, 
and taught you to utter, is one of the most abominable. 

Martin, Martin. I know very well that the authority of canonical scrip- 

^ • ture standeth not upon tlie certainty of the author; but yet to be Paul's 

or not Paul's, apostolical or not apostolical, maketh a great difference 
of credit and estimation. For what made St James' epistle doubted of 
sometime, or the second of St Peter, and the rest, but that they were 
not thought to be the epistles of those apostles? This Luther saw 
very well, when he denied St James' epistle to be James the apostle's 
writing. If titles of books be of no importance, then leave out Mat- 
thew, Mark, Luke, and John, leave out Paul in his other epistles also, 
and you shall much pleasure the Manichees and other old heretics: 
and if the titles make no difference, urge no more the title of the 
Apocalypse, St John the Divine, as though it were not St John's the 
Evangelist, and you shall much displeasure some heretics now-a-days. 
Briefly, most certain it is, and they know it best by their own usual 
doings, that it is a principal way to the discredit of any book, to deny 
it to be that author's under whose name it hath been received. 

FiiLKE, Fulke. If you know so well that the authority of the 

canonical scripture standeth not upon the certainty of the author, 
as indeed it doth not — for the books of Judges, of Ruth, of 
Samuel the later, of the Kings, &c. who can certainly affirm 
by whom they were written? — with what forehead do you charge 
us to doubt of the authority of tliis epistle, because we report 
out of the ancient writers the uncertainty of the author, or 
leave out that title which is not certainly true ? " But yet 
(you say) to be Paul's or not Paul's, apostoHcal or not apos- 
tolical, maketh great difference of credit and estimation." 
If by apostolical you mean, of apostolical spirit or authority, 
I agree to that you say of apostolical, or not apostolical. If 
you mean apostoHcal that only which was written by some 
apostle, you will make great difference of credit and estima- 
tion between the gospel of Mark, Luke, and the Acts of the 


Apostles, from the gospels of Matthew and John. But which 
of us, I pfay you, that thmketh that this epistle was not 
written by St Paul, once doubteth whether it be not of apos- 
tolical spir'it and authority? Which is manifest by this, that 
both in preaching and writing we cite it thus, the Apostle to 
the Hebrews. And if it were written by St Lulve, or by St 
Clement, which both were apostohc men, seeing it is out of 
controversy that it was written by the Spirit of God, it is 
doubtless apostolical, and differeth not in credit and estimation 
from those writings that are known certainly to have been 
written by the apostles. But I marvel greatly why you write, 
that to be Paul's or not Paul's maketh great difference of 
credit and estimation. Those epistles that are Peter's and 
John's are not Paul's; and yet I think there is no great dif- 
ference of credit and estimation between them and Paid's. 
What you thuik, I know not ; but you write very suspiciously. 
You ask what made St James' epistle, or the 2nd of Peter 
and the rest, to be sometimes doubted of, but that they were 
not thought to be the epistles of those apostles ? Yes, some- 
thing else, or else they doubted vainly of them, and without 
just cause, as I think they did. But when there were two 
apostles called James, he that doubteth whether the epistle 
was written by James the brother of John, and is persuaded 
it was written rather by James the son of Alpheus, doubteth 
nothing of the credit, authority, and estimation of the epistle. 
No more do we, which doubt whether the epistle to the 
Hebrews were written by St Paul, seeing we are persuaded 
it was written either by St Barnabas, or by St Luke, or by 
St Clement, as the ancient writers thought, or by some other 
of the apostles or evangehsts ; we make no question but that 
it is apostolical, and of equal authority with the rest of the 
holy scriptures. But Eusebius denied the epistle of St James, 
because he was persuaded that it was written by no apostle 
or apostolic man, and therefore saith plainly that it is a bastard 
or counterfeit ; and so belike was Luther deceived, if ever he 
denied it, as you say he did. " But if titles of books be of 
no importance, (say you,) then leave out Matthew, Mark, 
John, and Paul in his other epistles." AVhat need that, I 
pray you ? Is there no difference between leaving out a title 
whereof there hath been great uncertainty and diversity in 
God's church, and which in some Greek copies both written 



and printed is left out ; and in leaving out those titles that 
never were omitted, nor never any question or controversy 
moved of them by any of the ancient catholic fathers ? But 
you will us to lu-ge no more the title of the Apocalypse of 
St John the Divine, as though it were not St John the 
Evangehst's ; and we shall please I kiiow not what heretics 
of our time, except it be the papists, whom it would most 
concern that the Revelation of St John, in which their anti- 
christ of Rome is so plainly described, were brought out of 
credit. But if you had read Beza's preface before the Apo- 
calypse, you should find that even by that title he gathereth 
a probable argument, that it was written by John the 
Evangelist, because it is not like that this excellent name. 
The Divine, could agree to any John in the apostles' time 
so aptly, as to St John the Evangehst, beside the consent 
of aU antiquity, ascribing that Revelation to St John the 
evangehst and apostle. " Last of aU (you say) it is most 
certain, and we know best by our usual doings, that it is a 
principal way to discredit any book, to deny it to be the 
author's imder whose name it hath been received." How 
certain it is with you, whereof no man else but you can see 
any light of reason or necessity of conclusion, I know not ; 
but we are not so void of wit, if we lacked honesty, that we 
would discredit Paul's epistle by saying it was Peter's, or 
Augustine's sermon by saying it was Ambrose's, or Chrysos- 
tom's work by -saying it was Basil's. But if we would bring- 
any book out of credit by denying the author whose title it 
hath borne, we would rather entitle it to some other writer 
of less credit or later time, or by some other arguments 
prove it unworthy of credit, not by only denying it to be the 
author's under whose name it hath been received. 

Martin, Martin. But I come to the third point, of voluntary expositions of 

the scripture, that is, when every man expoundeth according to liis error 
and heresy. This needeth no proof, for we see it with our eyes. Look 
upon the Calvinists and Puritans at home ; the Lutherans, Zuinglians, 
and Calvinists abroad. Read their books written vehemently, one sect 
against another. Are not their expositions of one and the same scripture 
as diverse and contrary, as their opinions differ one from another ? Let 
the example at home be, their controversy about the distinction of eccle- 
siastical degrees, archbishop, bishop, and minister ; the example abroad, 
their diverse imaginations and fancies upon these most sacred words. 
Hoc est corpus meum. 


Ftdke. That every one of us expoundeth the scripture Fulke, 
voluntarily 'according to liis error or heresy, you say it needeth ^^' 
no proof, for you see it with your eyes. You have very clear 
sight to see a mote in other men's eyes, but cannot see a 
beam in your own. You make your demonstration by the 
Calvinists and Puritans at home, and the Lutherans, Zuin- 
glians, and Calvinists abroad; the one for the distinction of 
ecclesiastical degrees, archbishop, bishop, and minister ; the 
other for their diverse imaginations and fancies of these 
words, Hoc est corpus meum. But I beseech you, sir, touch- 
ing the domestical dissension, what is the text, or what be 
the texts of scripture, upon which these voluntary expositions 
are made, for the distinction or confusion of ecclesiastical 
degrees? K they had been as ready as. Hoc est corpus meum, 
they should have been set down as well as that. But I sup- 
pose they are yet to seek ; for that controversy, as I take it, 
standeth rather in collections than interpretations, and in 
question whether the pohtical government of the church be 
distinctly expressed in the scripture or no. As for the con- 
tention abroad, I confess to stand a great part in exposition 
of that text, wherein although the one part doth err, is 
that a sufficient cause to condemn them both? The church 
of Africa and the church of Rome, and the two principal 
lights of them both, Cyprian and Cornelius, dissented about 
rebaptizino- them that were baptized of heretics. The Afri- cypnanus, 

r IS 1 et all! m 

cans, not in one text only, but in the exposition of many, ^ricano. 
differed from the Romans, and from the truth ; yet it were 
hard to condemn them both for heretics, and least of all 
them that held the truth. St Augustine and St Jerome^ 
dissented about a text of St Paul to the Galatians, of Peter's 
dissembling, as their contrary epistles do testify. The truth 
was of St Augustine's side ; yet was not the other an heretic, 
following a wrong interpretation. And to come nearer home 
unto you, the Dominican and Franciscan friars were at 
daggers drawing, as we say, yea, at most sharp and bitter 
contention between themselves, and all the popish church 
was divided about their brawling, concerning the conception 

\} Augustin. ad Hieron. Epist. xxviii. Vol. ii. p. 45. and Vol. xi. p. 85. 
Hierouymus ad Augustin. Epist. lxxvi. de Petro rej^rehenso a Paulo. 
Opera, Vol. iv. pars 2. p. 629. edit. Benedict. 1706. The text was Gal. 
ii. 14.] 



of the virgin Mary, whether she were conceived in sin, or 
no ; where many texts of scripture must needs receive volun- 
tary expositions, if not of both parts, yet at the least of 
one part : which of these will you say were heretics ? If 
you say neither of both, then must you have stronger 
reasons to prove us all heretics, than voluntary expositions, 
where parties be in diverse opinions, especially in matters 
not overthrowing the foundation of christian religion. And 
when you have gathered the most voluntary expositions you 
can find, yet shall you find none so gross, so absurd, so im- 
pertinent, as you papists have coined for maintenance of 
your errors and heresies, of which you yourself are ashamed, 
though otherwise you have iron foreheads and brasen faces. 
A few examples among a great many shall suffice. " God 
made man according to his own image :" that is to say, we 
must have images in the church. " No man lighteth a candle 
and putteth it under a bushel :" the meaning is, that images 
must be set upon the altar. " God made two great lights, 
the sun and the moon :" that is, the pope to be above the 
emperor'. " Behold, here are two swords:" that is, the pope 
hath power of both the swords. " Put on the whole armour 
of God :" that is, the priest must put on all his vestments, 
before he say mass. " I am become as sounding brass, or 
as a tinkling cymbal :" that is, the bells in the steeple sig- 
nify preacliing of God's word. I might fill many leaves, 
yea, a whole book, of such popish expositions, as the papists 
in our days dare not for shame abide by. 

Martin Martin. And if you will yet have a further demonstration, this one 

14. may suffice for all. They reject councils and fathers, and the catholic 

church's interpretation, unless it be agreeable to God's word; and whether 

it be agreeable or no, that Luther shall judge for the Lutherans, Calvin 

for the Calvinists, Cartwright for the Puritans, and another for the 

whitak. brethren of love : briefly, themselves will be judges both of councils and 

120. ^" fathers, whether they expound the scriptures well or no ; and every youth 

among them, upon confidence of his spirit and knowledge, will saucily 

control not only one, but all the fathers consenting together, if it be 

against that which they imagine to be the truth. 

FuLKE, Fulke. We had need of a better demonstration than the 

14. former, by whicli you yourselves are proved heretics, rather 

{} Innocent IIL who excommunicated king John, thus mterpreted 
Gen. i. 16, in a letter he addressed to the English monarch. See Marsh's 
Lectures, pp. 369, 370.3 


than we. But let us see how handsomely you begin. " They 
reject (say you) councils and fathers, and the catholic church's 
interpretation, unless it be agreeable to God's word." Thus 
far you say well. We do reject not only those that you 
name, but even an angel from heaven, except his message 
be agreeable to God's word. But all the rest that you as- 
sume, to the end of this section, is a stark staring Ue, ex- 
cept that "you say of H. N.^ for the bretlu'en of love, which 
are more like to you than to us. For neither Luther, nor 
Calvin, nor Cartwright is judge among us, whether any thing 
be agreeable to the word of God ; but whatsoever any of 
them do say, it is examined and tried by the scriptures. 
And the scriptures themselves, where they are so obscure, 
that neither by common sense, knowledge of the original 
tongue, grammar, rhetoric, logic, history, nor any other human 
knowledge, nor judgment of any writers, old or new, the 
certain understanding can be found out, they are either ex- 
poimded by conference of other plainer texts of scripture, 
according to the analogy of faith ; or else they remain still 
in obscurity, until it shall please God to reveal a more clear 
knowledge of them. But none so like the family of love as 
you papists are, which reject councils, fathers, interpretation 
of the most ancient catholic church, yea, and manifest scrip- 
ture itself, except it be agreeable to the judgment of your 
P. M. Poniifex Max. the pope, as those familiar devils submit 
all things to the sentence and authority of their H. N. 
Shame you nothing therefore to quote Whitaker^ pp. 17 and 
120, as though he affirmed, that we ourselves wiU be judges 
both of councils and fathers, whether they expound the 
scriptures well or no ? because he writeth (percase), that we 
ought to examine all men's writings by the word of God. 
Doth the apostle make every man judge of all things, when 
he willeth every man to examine aU things, and to hold that 
which is good? If any youth, upon confidence of liis wit 
or knowledge, presume too much m divine matters, we count 
it rashness. But that any youth among us, upon confidence 
of his spirit, wUl saucily control all the fathers consenting 
together against his fantasy, except it be some schismatic 
or heretic, that is cast out from amongst us, I do utterly 

\^ Henry Nicholas. Vid. Cardwell's Documentary Annals, Vol. i. 
p. 392.] 

P Ad Rationes Campiani. edit. 1581.] 


deny ; neither are you able to prove it of any that is allowed 
among us. 

Martin, Martin. Whereupon it riseth, that one of them defendeth tliis as 

iwd 101 ^^^y ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ Luther, " That he esteemed not the worth of a rush a 

thousand Augustines, Cyprians, churches, against himself." And another 

very finely and figuratively (as he thought), against the holy doctor and 

Praf. ad 6.1 martyr St Cyprian, affirming that the church of Rome cannot en- in faith, 

Oxon.' p. 25. saith thus : " Pardon me, Cyprian, I would gladly believe thee, but that 

believing thee I should not believe the gospel." This is that which S. 

Lib. Con- Aujnistine saith of the like men : Dulcissime vanos esse, non peritos, sed 

fess. 1. cap. '^ 9 A J T 

14. lib. 7. perituros, nee tarn disertos in errore, quam desertos a veritate . And 1 
^' ' think, verily, that not only we, but the wiser men among themselves, 
cicer. de smile at such eloquence, or pity it, saying this or the like most truly : 
Prodierunt oratores novi, stulti adokscentuli. 

FuLKE, Fulhe. Why should you not, at your plea&Tire, upon your 

false assumption general infer one or two slanders particular ? 
Mr Wliitaker defendeth that it was well said of Luther, " That 
he esteemeth not the worth of a rush a thousand Augustines, 
Cyprians, churches, against liimself." Would God that every 
papist would read liis own words in the place by you quoted, 
that he might see your impudent forgery! For I do hope 
there is no Christian that will imagine, that either Luther 
would so speak, or any man of honesty defend him, so speak- 
ing. For Luther was not so senseless, to oppose his own. 
person, but the truth of his cause, grounded upon the holy 
scriptures, not only agamst one thousand of men holding the 
contrary, but even against ten thousand of angels, if they 
should oppose themselves against the truth of God. But I 
am to blame to deal so much in Mr Whitaker's cause, who, 
ere it be long, will display the falsehood of Gregory Martin, 
in a Latin writing, to his great ignominy. 

The next cavil is upon Mr Rainolds' words, in his preface 
to his Six Positions, disputed upon at Oxford, where against 
Cyprian, affirming that the church of Rome cannot err in 
faith, he saith, " Pardon me, Cyprian, I would gladly beheve 
thee, but that in beheving thee I should not beheve the 

\} Sex Theses de S. Scriptura et Ecclesia. Rupellae. 1586, by John 

P This is- garbled fvom two or more passages : Nam et Homerus, 
peritus texere tales fabellas, et dulcissime vanus est, &c. Confess, i. 14. 
p. 146. edit. Bened. Garriebam plane quasi peritus, et nisi in Christo 
Salvatore nostro viam tuam quaererem, non peritus, sed periturus essem. 
lb. vii. 20. p. 247.] 


gospel." These words you confess that he spake figuratively 
and finely, as he thought; but that he used the figures of 
irony and concession, you will not acknowledge, but all other 
men may easily see. For first, he no where granteth that St 
Cyprian affirmeth, that the church of Rome cannot err in 
faith. But immediately before the words by you translated, 
after he had proved out of the eleventh to the Romans, that 
the particular church of Rome may be cut off, as well as the 
church of the Israehtes, which were the natural branches, 
he asks the question, Quid f et Cypriano seem est msum ? 
" What ? and did it seem otherwise to Cyprian ? Pardon me, 
Cyprian, &c." His meaning is plain, that Cyprian thought 
not otherwise than St Paul hath written ; or if he did, it was 
lawful to dissent from Cyprian. As a httle after he saith, 
Quare si Bomanam ecclesiam errare non posse, S^c. Where- 
fore, if Cyprian thought that the church of Rome could not 
err in that point, by the sentence of the papists he himself 
is to be condemned of error ; for divers papists whom he 
nameth, confess that every particular church may err ; and 
Verratus, one of them, affirmeth that the church of Rome is 
a particular church, wliich the rest cannot deny. And indeed 
that which Cyprian writeth, is about certain runagate here- 
tics, that, flying out of the church of Carthage, sought to be 
received of the particular church of Rome. All this whUe 
here is no grant that Cyprian affirmeth, that the church of 
Rome cannot err in faith. And if Cyprian had so affirmed 
contrary to the scripture, it might have been justly replied 
unto him, which St Augustine saith Avhen he was pressed with 
his authority. Contra Crescon., Mb. 2, cap. 31. Nos nullam 
Cypriano facimus injuriam: "We do Cyprian no wrong," when 
we distinguish any writings of his from the canonical autho- 
rity of the divine scriptures. And in truth the words which 
Mr Rainolds before cited out of St Cyprian, lib. 1, ep. 3, ad 
Cornel., are spoken of no matter of faith, but in a matter of 
discipline. Neither doth Cyprian say that the church of Rome 
cannot err in faith, but that those heretics which brought 
letters from schismatics and profane persons, did not consider 
that they are Romans, whose faith is praised by the com- 
mendation or preaching of the apostle, to whom perfidia, 
" falsehood, or false dealing," can have none access^ : meaning 

P Post ista adhuc insuper Pseudo-episcopo sibi ab haereticis consti- 
tuto, navigare audent, et ad Petri cathedram atque ad ecclesiam princi- 


that the Romans, so long as they continue in that faith which 
was praised by the apostle, cannot join with heretics and 
schismatics, that are cast out of other catholic churches. For 
that he could not mean that the pope or church of Rome 
cannot err in faith (as the papists affirm), it is manifest, for 
that in a question of religion, he dissented both from the 
bishop and church of Rome, as all learned men know he did, 
which he would never have done, if he had believed they could 
not err. And that his meaning was not that the bishop of 
Rome could not err in matters of discipline, it is manifest in 
the next epistle, where he complaineth, that Basihdes, a 
wicked man, "after his crimes were detected, and his conscience 
made bare by his own confession, went to Rome, and deceived 
our fellow-bishop, Stephanus, dwelling far oif, and being igno- 
rant of the case, so that he sought ambitiously to be unjustly 
restored into the bishopric from whence he was justly deposed'." 
These things prove, that St Cyprian thought it no impossible 
thing for the bishops and church of Rome to err in faith 
or government. Wherefore that you cite out of Augustine 
agreeth best unto yourself, and such as you are, who employ 
all your eloquence and utterance to set forth lies and slanders. 
Last of all, when you have nothing else to disgrace those 
grave and learned writers, you would make them, by abusing 
a piece of Tully, contemptible for their youth among such 
as know them not ; who if they wanted half a score years 
apiece of that ripe and well-seasoned age they have, yet 
with those gifts of godhness and learning, which God hath in 
great measure bestowed upon them, they were worthy to be 
reverenced. So that venomous traitor, which writeth of the 
persecution of the papists, maketh me a very young man, and 

palem, unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est, a schismaticis et prophanis 
literas ferre ; nee cogitare eos esse Romanos, quorum fides apostolo prae- 
dicante laudata est, ad quos perfidia non potest habere accessum. Cypri- 
ani Opera. Par. 1609. 4to. fol. 7. hodie Epist. 3.5.] 

[} Quod et apud vos factum videmus in Sabini coUegse nostri ordi- 
natione, ut de universae fratemitatis suffragio et de episcoporum qui in 
praesentia convenerant, quique de eo ad vos literas fecerant, judicio 
episcopatus ei deferretur, et manus ei in locum Basilidis imponeretur. 
Nee rescrndere ordinationem jure perfeetam potest, quod Basilides, post 
crimina sua detecta et conseientiara etiam propria confessione nudatam, 
Romam pergens Stephanum collegam nostrum longe positum et gestae 
rei ac veritatis ignarum fefellit, ut cxambiret reponi se injuste in epis- 
copatum de quo fuerat jure depositus. — Cypriani Epistola lxviii. edit. 
Baluzii. 1706. p. 119.] 


therefore contemned of the ancient fathers at Wisbech ; and 
yet I can 'easily prove that I was of lawful age, if more than 
twice one-and-twenty years will serve, before ever I saw 
Wisbech castle. 

Martin. The fourth pomt is, of picking quarrels to the veiy original Mabtin, 
text : for alter and change it I hope they shall not be able in this watch- "• 
ful world of most vigilant catholics. But what they would do, if all 
bibles were only in their hands and at their commandment, guess by 
this : that Beza, against the evidence of aU copies, both Greek and Latin, Beza, the 
(in his Annotations upon the New Testament, set forth in the year 1556,) Geneva, 
thinketh tt^wtoc is more than should be in the text Matt, x., and to text of 

» / T •• 1 - ' ^ « •• 1 o scripture. 

eK'^vvonevov, Luc. xxu., and irpoa-Kwetv auToi?, Acts vu. : the lirst 

against Peter's supremacy; the second, against the real presence of 

Christ's blood in the blessed sacrament; the third, against the making 

of whatsoever images, whether they be adored or no. Thus you see, how . 

the mouse of Geneva (as I told you before of Marcion the mouse of 

Pontus) nibbleth and gnaweth about it, though he cannot bite it off 


Fulke. In this point you do notliing but pick quarrels, see- Fulke, 
ing you confess that neither they have, nor can alter or change ^^* 
any thing of the original text. If Beza express his conjecture 
upon some ground or similitude of I'eason, that ttjowtos in 
Matthew x., to eK-^woixevov, Luke xxii., and irpooKwelv av- 
Tol^, Acts vii., might perhaps be added to the text out of the 
margin or otherwise, and yet doth not precisely affirm it, but 
leave it to judgment and trial of ancient copies, if any shall 
be found to favour his conjecture ; what hath he like to the 
mouse of Pontus, Marcion, which altered and corrupted the 
text? You say he nibbleth and gnaweth about it, though 
he cannot bite it off altogether : and for what advantage ? 
forsooth, because the first word maketh for Peter's supre- 
macy, a poor supremacy that Peter can gain in that he is 
named the first in the catalogue of the apostles, which is 
but a primacy of order, not of honour ; or, as Ambrose- saith, Deincam. 
a primacy of confession, not of honoiu*, of faith, not of de- 
gree. The second word you say is against the real presence 
of Christ's blood in the blessed sacrament. You are a perilous 

P Hie ergo qui ante reticebat, ut doceret nos quod impiorum nee 
verbupi debeamus iterare ; hie, inquam, ubi audivit, * Fos autem quid 
me dicitis? statim loci non immemor sui, primatum egit; primatum 
confessionis utique, non honoris; primatum fidei, non ordinis. — Am- 
brosii de Incam. Domini Liber unus. cap. 4. Opera, Vol. ii. p. 710. 
edit. Bened. Paris. 1690.] 

* Matt. xvi. 15. 


cat, that can spy a mouse gnawing at the real presence, which 
none of the ancient fathers, or late writers before these days, 
could find in those words. And as for making of images, 
who doth forbid, except it be in any use of religion, which 
God doth forbid ui the second commandment of the first table ? 
And where you will have men to guess what we would do if 
all bibles were only in our hands, by this example of Beza's 
conjectures ; I wish men rather to consider what the Romish 
rats were like to do in that case, which in their translation 
of the ten commandments for the people's instruction have 
clean gnawed out the second commandment ; and because they 
cannot bite it clean out of the bible, they seek all shifts to 
hide it under the first commandment. Finally, whether Lin- 
danus and you do pick quarrels against all the evidence of 
all Greek copies, I refer me to your fourth section, where out 
of Lindanus you falsely affirm, that certain of Marcion's cor- 
ruptions remain in the Greek text until this day. 

Martin, Martin. He doth the like in sundry places, which you may see in 

^^' his Annotations, Acts vii. 16 ; where he is saucy against all copies, Greek 

and Latin, to pronounce corruption, corruption, avouching and endeavour- 
ing to prove that it must be so, and that with these words, " To what pur- 
pose should the Holy Ghost, or Luke, add this 1" Acts viii. 26. But because 
those places concern no controversy, I say no more but that he biteth at 
the text, and would change it according to his imagination, if he might ; 
which is too proud an enterprise for Beza, and small reverence of the 
holy scriptures, so to call the very text into controversy, that whatsoever 
pleaseth not him, crept out of the margin into the text, which is his com- 
mon and almost his only conjecture. 

FuLKE, Fulhe. Where Beza noteth corruption in places that con- 

^^' cern no controversy, it appeareth that without partiality he 

desireth to restore the text to sincerity. And yet he is 
charged of you with pride and sauciness. Why more, I pray 
you, than Lindanus, of whom you learned to prattle so much 
of the mouse of Pontus ? Which, Mb. 2, de optim. gen. inter- 
pret, scripturas, hath divers chapters of the defect of the 
Greek text, of the redundance, and of the corruption thereof. 
If Lindanus might do this with modesty, and desire to find out 
the truth (as I think he did), why may not an indifferent 
reader judge the like of Beza in his doings ? As for creepmg 
out of the margin into the text, which you say is his common 
and almost only conjecture, why may it not come to pass in 
writing out of the books of the scripture, as it hath in other 


writings of other authors ? And that either by that means, 
or by some other means, corruption hath happened to all 
copies that at tliis day are extant, both Greek and Latin, in 
naming Jeremiah for Zechariah, Matthew xxvii., who is so 
blind that he will not see? Yet the ordinary Gloss confesseth, 
that there were divers copies in times past, in which the 
name of Jeremiah was not, but the word prophet generally. 
Likewise in the vulgar Latin text, in the beginning of St 
Mark's gospel, Isaiah is cited for that wliich is written in 
Malachf, and some Greek copies have the same, from whence 
it is like the Latin translation received that error : but 
the more part of best Greek copies leave out the name of 
Isaiah. How these corruptions should come into the text, 
except it be out of the margin, if you can find a better con- 
jecture, we shall be content with more patience to hear you, 
than you can abide to hear Beza. 

Martin. He biteth sore at the word civaroXt], Luke i. 78, and will Martin, 
not translate that, but the Hebrew word of the Old Testament; but at ^^• 
ft)S?i/a?, Acts ii. 24, much more, and at efSoajju^KovTa TreVre, Acts vii. -" 
14, exceedingly: but yet, after he hath said aU that he could against it, ^"jgl^'- 
he concludeth, that he durst not, and that he had a conscience, upon rovKaivdi/. 
conjecture to change any thing. And therefore all this is gnawing only. ciietVthe"' 
But in the third of Luke he maketh no conscience at aU, to leave out ^f ^^g ^g^ 
these words, verse 36, Qui fuit Cainan, not only in his own translation, ^tth'the"He 
but in the vulgar Latin which is joined therewith, saying in his Annota- [^^ ofS^t"*^ 
tions, Non dubitavimus expungere; that is, "We doubted not to put it putting'out 
out : and why ? " By the authority of Moses, Gen. xi. :" whereby he signi- text so much 
fieth, that it is not in the Hebrew, Gen. xi., where this posterity of Shem him. 
is reckoned ; and so, to maintain the Hebrew verity (as they call it) in 
the Old Testament, he careth not what become of the Greek in the New 
Testament, which yet at other times, against the vulgar Latin text, they 
call the Greek verity, and the pure fountain, and that text whereby all 
translations must be tried. 

Fulke. His biting (as you call it) at the Avord dvaToXrj Fulke, 
Luke i., and lo^lva^, Acts ii., and el^Sofx^Koura irevre, Acts vii., ^^^ 
seeing they concern no controversy, might have been contained 
in the section next before, especially seeing you confess he saith 
he durst not, and that he had a conscience, upon conjecture 
to change anytliing. But in the third of Luke, verse 36, he 
maketh no conscience at all to leave out the words. Qui fuit 
Cainan, saying in liis Annotations that he doubted not to 
put it out by authority of Moses, Genesis xi. ; a sore charge 
to diminish any part of the holy scripture. But if he have 


only corrected an error of the scribe, wliich by all likelihood 
took upon him to add unto St Luke out of the Greek text 
of the LXX. that wliich is not in the Hebrew, verily, I see 
not what oifence he hath committed. For, first, he can mean 
no fraud in concealing those words, whereof he doth admonish 
the reader, and of the cause of his leaving them out. Se- 
condly, he winneth no advantage against his adversaries, or 
to his own cause, by omitting to say, that Sala was the son of 
Cainan, whom Moses affirmeth to be the son of Arphaxad. 
And seeing Moses, Genesis xi., hath no such Cainan the son of 
Arphaxad, it is not like that St Luke, who borrowed that 
part of his genealogy out of Moses, would add anything which 
Moses had omitted. But you say that Beza, to maintain the 
Hebrew verity of the Old Testament, careth not what become 
of the Greek in the New Testament. You should have made 
your antitheton more full (wherein it seemeth you pleased 
yourself not a little), if you had said that Beza, to maintain 
the Hebrew verity of the Old Testament, careth not what 
becometh of the Greek corruption in the New Testament ; 
and so you should have spoken both more eloquently and 
more truly. But at other times (you say), against the vulgar 
Latin text, they call the Greek text the Greek verity, and 
the pure fountain, and that whereby all translations must be 
tried. We say indeed, that by the Greek text of the New 
Testament all translations of the New Testament must be 
tried ; but we mean not by every corruption that is in any 
Greek copy of the New Testament, and much less that the 
Hebrew text of the Old Testament should be reformed after the 
Greek of the New, where it is uncorrupted ; and least of all, 
where any copy is guilty of a manifest error, as in this place 
now in question, 

Martin, Martin. But if he have no other way to reconcile both Testaments, 

but by striking out in the Greek of the New all that agreeth not with 
the Hebrew of the Old Testament, then let him alter and change so 
many words of our Saviour himself, of the evangelists, and of the apostles, 
as are cited out of the Old Testament, and are not in Hebrew. Which 
places they know are very many, and when need is, they shall be gathered 
to their hands. Let him strike out (Matt. xiii. 14, 15, and Acts xxviii. 

isai. vi. 9, 26, 27) the words of our Saviour and St Paul, cited out of Isaiah, because 


Gal. iii. 13. they are far otherwise in the Hebrew. Strike out of the Epistle to the 
Tras Kpefxa- Qajatiaus thesc words, " upon a tree," because in the Hebrew it is only 
^v\ov. thus : " Cursed is he that is hanged." Deut. xxi. in fine. Yea, strike 
'"'''" out of David's Psalms that which concerneth our redemption upon the 


cross much nearer, "They have pierced my hands and my feet," (Psalm 
xxi.) because- in the Hebrew there is no such thing. Let them control 
the apostle (Eph. iv.) for saying, dedit, " he gave gifts," because it is eXa^es. 
both in the Hebrew and Greek, (Psalm Ixvii.) accepisti, " thou tookest ^f?^ 
gifts," and (Heb. x.) for corpus aptasti let them put aures perforasti, be- Q'^.l'* 
cause it is so in the Hebrew, (Psalm xl.) To be short, if aU must be "b nnD 
reformed according to the Hebrew, why doth he not in St Stephen's 
sermon cut off the number of five souls from seventy-five, because it is 
not in the Hebrew ? 

FulJce. If you had read Beza's works as diligently to learn Fulke, 
the truth out of them, as you have pried here and there 
busily how to espy some fault or error in them, you should 
easily have found that he hath other ways to reconcile both 
the Testaments, and the difference that seemeth to be in the 
allegations, than by striking out of the Greek in the New , 
all that agreeth not with the Hebrew of the Old Testament. 
And therefore vainly you bid him alter so many words as 
are cited in the New Testament out of the Old, which are not 
in the Hebrew, and strike out of Matthew xiii. 14, 15, and 
Acts xxviii. 26, 27, the words of our Saviour and St Paid, 
cited out of Isaiah, because they are otherwise in the He- 
brew. Beza knoweth that Christ and his apostles always keep 
the sense of the Hebrew verity, although they do not always 
rehearse the very words. But whereas you bid him out of 
Gal. iii. 13, strike out these words "upon a tree," because 
in the Hebrew it is only thus, "Cui'sed is he that is hanged;" 
you shew either gross ignorance or intolerable frowardness, 
for these words " upon a tree" are in that verse, and in the 
next before. For thus the Hebrew text is : " 22. When there w'^y 
shall be in any person a sin to be adjudged to death, and he X^rr'^v 
shall be delivered to death, if thou shalt hang him upon a 
tree : 23. Let not his carcase tarry all night upon that tree, 
but in any case thou shalt bury him the same day, for accursed 
to God is he that is hanged." The word "tree" being twice 
named before, who would be so mad to say, that St Paul 
hath added it beside the Hebrew text ? Likewise, where you 
bid us strike out of the Hebrew, Psalm xxi., that which con- [fsai- x""! 
cerneth our redemption on the cross, " They have pierced 
my hands and my feet," because in the Hebrew there is no 
such thing ; you say most untruly, for there is nothing else 
in the Hebrew, no, not in the common readings, as Johannes 
Isaac, a popish Jew, will teach you, who hath confuted the 


cavils of Lindanus against the Hebrew text, of whom you 
borrowed this example, where, if you had not been blind with 
malice, you might have seen that St Jerome did read without 
controversy fixerunt, " they have pierced," as also that the 
most ancient copy of the Hebrew Psalms, supposed to have 
nxa pertained to St Augustine of Canterbury, hath charu, " they 
have pierced ; " though you had been ignorant what is written 
concerning tliis word in the Masoreth, and what Isaac also 
writeth of that word, as it is commonly read, that it cannot 
signify, as you fancy, sicut leo, " like a lion:" and therefore the 
Chaldee paraphrase tm'neth it, " As a lion, they pierced my 
hands and my feet." But of this matter more hereafter, as 
occasion shall be given. As for the apostle, Ephes. iv. saying 
that Christ pave gifts, whereas of David it is said, he received 
gifts, speaketh notliing contrary to the Hebrew ; but sheweth 
wherefore Christ hath received gifts, namely, to bestow upon 
his church : — except you will say that Christ gave of liis 
own and received none, and so the apostle doth shew the 
excellency of the truth above the figure, Christ above David. 
Likewise, where the psalmist saith in the Hebrew, " Thou 
hast opened mine ears," the apostle doth rightly collect, that 
Christ had a body, wliich in his obedience was to be offered 
unto the Father. Last of all, you would have five souls cut 
from seventy-five in St Stephen's sermon, because it is not 
in the Hebrew ; but you are deceived. For St Stephen 
gathereth the whole number of them that are named in the 
46th chapter of Genesis, namely, the two sons of Judah that 
were dead, and Jacob's four wives, to shew how great liis 
famUy was at the uttermost, before he went down into Egypt, 
and how greatly God did multiply him afterward. What is 
there in any of these examples lilce to qui fuit Cainan, about 
which you make so much ado ? 

Mariin, Martin. Must such difficulties and diversities be resolved by cliop- 

ping and changing, hacking and hewing, the sacred text of holy scripture ? 
See into what perplexities wilful heresy and arrogancy hath driven them. 
To discredit the vulgar Latin translation of the bible, and the Fathers' 
expositions according to the same, (for that is the oi-iginal cause of this,) 
and besides that they may have always this evasion, " It is not so in the 
Hebrew, it is otherwise in the Greek," and so seem jolly fellows and 
great clerks unto the ig'norant people. What do they ? They admit 
only the Hebrew in the Old Testament, and the Greek in the New, to be 
the true and authentical text of the scripture. Whereupon this followeth. 


that they reject, and must needs reject, the Greek of the Old Testament 
(called the Septuagint) as false, because it differeth from the Hebrew. Their per- 
Which being rejected, thereupon it folio weth again, that wheresoever defending 
those places so disagreeing from the Hebrew are cited by Christ or Hebrew^ text 
the evangelists and apostles, there also they must be rejected, because Testament, 
they disagree from the Hebrew ; and so yet again it foUoweth that the j",^*!. ^ff^ 
Greek text of the New Testament is not true, because it is not according ^ew. 
to the Hebrew verity, and consequently the words of our Saviour and 
writings of his apostles must be reformed (to say the least), because 
they speak according to the Septuagint, and not according to the 

Fulke. Who alloweth, or who can abide chopping and Fulke, 
changing, or hacking and hewing, the sacred text of holy scrip- ^^' 
tures ? As for the perplexities, whereunto you feign that wilful 
heresy and arrogance hath driven us, is of your weaving ; for 
(God be praised !) we can well enough with good conscience 
and sound knowledge, that may abide the judgment of all the 
learned in the world, defend both the Hebrew text of the Old 
Testament and the Greek text of the Ncav : not of pm^pose to 
discredit the vulgar Latin translation and the expositions of 
the Fathers, but to fetch the truth, upon which the hope of 
otu" salvation is grounded, out of the first fountains and springs, 
rather than out of any streams that are derived from them. 
And this we do agreeable to the ancient Fathers' judgments. 
For who knoweth not, what fruitful pains St Jerome took in 
translating the scripture out of the original tongue ? JSTeither 
would he be dissuaded by St Augustine ^ who although he 

[^ Contra ignota signa propria magnum remedium est linguarum 
cognitio. Et Latinae quidem linguae homines, quos nunc instruendos 
suscepimus, duobus aliis ad scripturarum divinarum cognitionem opus 
habent, Hebrsea scilicet et Graeca, ut ad exemplaria praecedentia recur- 
ratur, si quam dubitationem adtulerit Latinoi-um interpretum inftnita 
varietas. Quamquam et Hebraea verba non interpretata saepe invenia- 
mus in libris, sicut Amen, et Halleluia, et Racha, et Hosanna, et si qua 
sunt alia; quorum partim propter sanctiorem auctoritatem, quam vis 
interpretari potuissent, servata est antiquitas, sicut est Amen, et Hal- 
leluia; partim vero in aliam linguam transferri non potuisse dicuntur, 
sicut alia duo quae posuimus. Sunt enim quaedam verba certarum lin- 
guarum, quae in usum alterius linguae per interpretationem transire 
non pos^int. Et hoc maxime interjectionibus accidit, quae verba mo- 
tum animi significant potius, quam sententiae conceptae uUam particu- 
1am; nam et haec duo talia esse perhibentur: dicunt enim Racha in- 
dignantis esse vocem, Hosanna laetantis. Sed non propter haec pauca, 
quae notare atque interrogare facillimum est, sed propter diversitates, 



misliked that enterprise at the first, yet afterward he highly 
commended the necessity of the Greek and Hebrew tongue 
for Latin men, to find out the certain truth of the text in 
the infinite variety of the Latin interpretations ; for thus he 
writeth, De Doct. Christ, lib. 2, cap. 11 : Contra ignota signa 
propria magnum remedium est linguarum cognitio. Et Latince, 
^c. "Against unknown proper signs the knowledge of tongues 
is a great remedy. And truly men of the Latin tongue, 
whom we have now taken in hand to instruct, have need also 
of two other tongues unto the knowledge of the divine scrip- 
tures, namely, the Hebrew and the Greek, that recourse may 
be had unto the former copies, if the infinite variety of the 
Latin interpreters shall bring any doubt; although we find 
oftentimes in the books Hebrew words not interpreted, as 
Amen, Alleluia., Racha, Osanna, Sfc," and a little after, Sed 
nan propter hcec pauca^ S^c. " But not for these few words 
wliich to mark and inquire of it is a very easy thing, but for 
the diversities (as it is said) of the interpreters, the knowledge 
of those tongues is necessary. For they that have interpreted 
the scriptures out of the Hebrew tongue into the Greek 
tongue may be numbered, but the Latin interpreters by no 
means can be numbered. For in the first times of the faith, 
as a Greek book came into every man's hand, and he seemed 
to have some skill in both the tongues, he was bold to inter- 
pret it. Wliich thing truly hath more helped the under- 
standing than hindered, if the readers be not negligent ; for 
the looking upon many books hath oftentimes made manifest 
sundry obscure or dark sentences." This is St Augustine's 
sound judgment of the knowledge of tongues and diversity 
of interpretations, for the better understanding of the scrip- 
tures. But let us see what be the absurdities that you gather 
of our defending the original texts of both the tongues. 
First, we must needs reject the Greek of the Old Testament, 

ut dictum est, interpretum, illarum linguarum est cognitio necessaria. 
Qui enim scripturas ex Hebraea lingua in Grsecam verterunt, nume- 
rari possunt, Latini autem interpretes nullo mode. Ut enim cuique 
primis fidei temporibus in manus venit codex Graecus, et aliquantu- 
lum facultatis sibi utriusque linguse habere videbatur, ausus est inter- 
pretari. Quae quidem res plus adjuvit intelligentiam, quam impedivit, si 
modo legentes non sint negligentes. Nam nonnuUas obscuriores sen- 
tentias plurium codicum saepe manifestavit inspectio. — De Doctrina 
Christiana, Lib. ii. cap. 11, 12. Opera, Vol. in. pp. 24, 25.] 


called Septuagint, as false, because it differeth from the 
Hebrew, wKere it is not only different in words, but also 
contrary in sense. Why should we not? But if it retain the 
sense and substance, although it express not the same words, 
we need not reject it. St Jerome \ who was required by Paula 
and Eustochium to expound the prophets, not only accord- 
ing to the truth of the Hebrew, but also after the translation 
of the Septuagint, whereof he divers times complaineth, 
upon the 1st of Nahum saith expressly, that it was against 
liis conscience always to follow the same. Ignoscite prolixi- 
iati, Sfc. " Pardon me that I am so long, for I cannot, 
following both the story and the tropology or doctrine of 
manners, comprehend both briefly ; most of all, seeing that 
I am so greatly tormented or troubled with the variety of the 
translation, and against my conscience sometimes I am com- 
pelled to frame a consequence of the vulgar edition," which 
was the Septuagint. This was St Jerome's opinion of the 
Septuagint translation. But upon rejection of that trans- 
lation (say you) it followeth, that wheresoever those places, so 
disagreeing from the Hebrew, are cited by Christ, or the 
evangehsts and apostles, there also they must be rejected, 
because they disagree from the Hebrew; and so the Greek 
text of the New Testament is not true, and consequently 
the words of our Saviour and writings of his apostles, speak- 
ing according to the Septuagint, must at least be reformed. 
It is an old saying, and a true, that one inconvenience being 
granted, many do follow; and so you may heap up an hundred 
after this manner. But for answer I say, that neither our 
Saviour, nor his apostles, citing any place out of the Old 
Testament, do bring anything disagreeing in sense and sub- 
stance of matter (the purpose for which they allege it consi- 
dered) from the truth of the Hebrew text. Therefore there 
is no need that the LXX. in those places should be rejected. 
Although our Saviour Christ, speaking in the Syrian tongue, 
is not to be thought ever to have cited the text of the LXX., 
which is in Greek. And his apostles and evangehsts, using 

[} Ignoscite prolixitati: non enim possum, et historian! et tropolo- 

giam sequens, breviter utrumque comprehendere : maxime qiium et 

interpretationis varietate torquear, et adversus conscientiam meam cogar 

interdum vulgatae editionis consequentiam texere. — Gomment. Hiero- 

nymi in Nahum. cap. 1. Opera, Vol. in. p. 1507.] 



that text, regard the substance of the sentence, and not the 
form of words. For many times they cite not the very words 
of the Greek LXX. neither; and St Jerome, in Catalogo script. 
Eccles., which is set as a preface to St Matthew's gospel, 
telleth you expressly, that in the Hebrew example of St 
Matthew, which he had, wheresoever the evangehst St Matthew, 
either in his own person, or in the person of our Lord and 
Saviour, useth the testimonies of the Old Testament, he fol- 
loweth not the authority of the seventy translators, but the 
Hebrew, of which these are two places : " Out of Egypt have 
I called my son," and " he shall be called a Nazarite." See 
you not what a perilous perplexity we are in by defending 
both the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, and the Greek 
of the New, when neither are contrary to the other ? 

Martin, Martin. All which must needs follow, if this be a good consequence, 

21. « J gjj^ j^ jjQ^ jjj Moses, nor in the Hebrew, therefore I struck it out," 

as Beza doth and saith concerning the foresaid words, qui fait Cainan. 
This consequence therefore let us see how they will justify ; and withal 
let them tell us, whether they will discredit the New Testament because 
of the Septuagint, or credit the Septuagint because of the New Testament; 
or how they can credit one and discredit the other, where both agree 
and consent together; or whether they wUl discredit both for credit 
of the Hebrew; or rather, whether there be not some other way to 
reconcile both Hebrew and Greek, better than Beza's impudent pre- 
sumption. Which if they wUl not maintain, let them flatly confess that 
he did wickedly, and not (as they do) defend every word and deed of 
their masters, be it never so heinous, or salve it at the least. 

FiTLKE, Fulke. No whit of that doth follow by striking out qui 

fait Cainan, because it is not found in Moses; and therefore we 
have nothing to do to justify your vain consequence, grounded 
upon an absurdity of your own devising. But we must tell 
you, whether we will discredit the New Testament because of 
the Septuagint! No, not for a thousand millions of Septuagints, 
nor for all the world will we credit the Septuagint against the 
truth of the Old Testament. But whatsoever is cited out of 
the LXX. in the New, is not contrary to the Hebrew in the 
Old; and therefore the way of reconciliation is easily found, 
without discrediting both, or either of both, in those places. 
And in this place, which is a mere corruption, borrowed out of 
the corruption of the Septuagint, or a Judaical addition, 
Genesis xi. I think there is no better way of reconciling than 
to strike it clean out, as Beza hath done ; which generation 


neither is in the Hebrew verity, nor in your own vulgar Latin 
translation; either Genesis xi., or 1 Par. i. Beside that it 
maketh a foul error in the computation of time, adding no 
less than two hmidred and thirty years between Arphaxad 
and Sala, more than the Hebrew verity, or the vulgar Latin 
agreeing therewith, doth number. And therefore he was 
more presumptuous, that out of the corrupt and false text 
of the Septuagint added the same mito the genealogy in St 
Luke, than Beza, which by the authority of Moses removed 
the same. If you will still persist to defend the authority of 
the Septuagint against the Hebrew verity, which like an atheist 
you deride, at leastwise defend your own vulgar Latin trans- 
lation of the Old Testament, and deUver yourself out of that 
perplexity in which you would place us between the Hebrew 
of the Old and the Greek of the New Testament ; seeing 
no less doubts entangleth you between the Latin of the New, 
and the Latin of the Old, differing altogether alike as the 
Greek and the Hebrew do. 

Martin. Alas ! how far are these men from the modesty of the ancient Martin, 
fathers, and from the humble spirit of obedient catholics, who seek all „ ' ^ 

' ^ ^ How the 

other means to resolve difficulties, rather than to do violence to the fathers re- 
sacred scripture ; and when they find no way, they leave it to God. said Hebrew 
St Augustine, concerning the difference of the Hebrew and the Greek, lib. is. de' 
saith often to this effect, that it pleased the Holy Ghost to utter by 43"'' '^^'^ 
the one that which he would not utter by the other. And St Ambrose^ Doctchr. 
thus : " We have found many things not idly added of the seventy Hlxam lib 
Greek interpreters." St Jerome^, though an earnest patron of the He- f^'^^f- ^■ 

lib. Paralip. 

[} Multa enim non otiose a Septuaginta viris Hebraicae lectioni ad- 
dita et adjuncta comperimus. — Hexaemeron. Lib. iii. cap. 5. Opera. Vol. i. 
p. 42.] 

[^ Legimus in apostolo : In aliis Unguis et in labiis aliis loquor po- 
pulo huic, et nee sic exaudient me, dicit Dominus. Quod mihi videtur 
juxta Hebraicum de praesenti sumptum capitulo : et hoc in veteri ob- 
servavimus Testament© (absque paucis testimoniis, quibus Lucas solus 
abutitur, qui magis Grsecae hnguae habuit scientiam) ubiquumque de 
veteri instrumento quid dicitur, non eos juxta Septuaginta, sed juxta 
Hebraicum ponere, nullius sequentes interpretationem, sed sensum He- 
braicum cum suo sermone vertentes. Symmachus, Theodotio, et LXX. 
de hoc loco (nempe Isaise xxviii. 9-13) diversa senserunt: et quia 
longum est de omnibus dicere, LXX. Interpretes, qui leguntur in ec- 
clesiis, breviter transcurramus. — Comment. Hieronymi in Isaiae xxviii. 
Opera, Vol. iii. pp. 237, 238. 

Neque vero Septuaginta Interpretum, ut invidi latrant, errores ar- 



brew (not without cause, being at that time perhaps the Hebrew verity 

indeed) yet giveth many reasons for the differences of the Septuagint; 

Comment, in and concerning the foresaid places of St Luke, he doth give a reason 

and in Quae- 

stion. He- guimus. • • • • Nec nostrum laborem illorum reprehensionem 
putamus, quum illi Ptolemaeo, regi Alexandria, mystica quiEque in 
scripturis Sanctis prodere noluerint; et maxirae ea quae Christi adven- 
tum poUicebantur ; ne viderentur Judsei et alteram Deum colere : quos 
ille Platonis sectator magni idcirco faciebat, quia unum Ueum colere 
dicerentur. Sed et evangelistae, et Dominus quoque noster atque Sal- 
vator, necnon et Paulus apostolus, multa quasi de veteri Testamento 
proferunt, quae in nostris codicibus non habentur: super quibus in 
suis locis plenius disseremus. Ex quo perspicuum est, ilia magis vera 
esse exemplaria, quae cum novi Testamenti auctoritate concordant. — 
Praefatio Hieronymi in Lib. Heb. Qusest. in Genesim. Opera, Vol. ii. 
pp. 506, 507. 

Si Septuaginta interpretum pura, et ut ab eis in Graecum versa 
est, editio permaneret, superfue me, mi Chromati, episcoporiim sanctis- 
sime atque doctissime, impelleres, ut Hebraea volumina Latino sermone 
transferrem : quod enim semel aures hominum occupaverat, et nas- 
centis ecclesiae roboraverat fidem, justum erat etiam nostro silentio 
comprobari. Nunc vero, cum pro varietate regionum diversa ferantur 
exemplaria, et germana ilia antiquaque translatio corrupta sit atque 
violata; nostri arbitrii putas, aut e pluribus judicare quid verum sit, 
aut novum opus in veteri opere cudere, illudentibusque Judaeis cor- 
nicum, ut dicitur, oculos configere. Alexandria et -ffigyptus in Sep- 
tuaginta suis Hesychium laudat auctorem. Constantinopolis usque 
Antiochiam Luciani Martyris exemplaria probat. Mediae inter has 
provinciae Palaestinos codices legunt, quos ab Origene elaborates Euse- 
bius et Pamphilus vulgaverunt: totusque orbis hac inter se trifaria 
varietate compugnat. Et certe Origenes non solum exemplaria compo- 
suit quatuor editionum, e regione singula verba describens, ut unus 
dissentiens statim ceteris inter se consentientibus arguatur; sed, quod 
majoris audaciae est, in editione Septuaginta Theodotionis editionem 
miscuit, asteriscis designans quae minus ante fuerant, et virgulis quae 
ex superfluo videbantur apposita. Si igitur aliis licuit non tenere quod 
semel susceperant ; et post Septuaginta cellulas, quae vulgo sine auctore 
jactantur, singulas cellulas aperuere, hocque in ecclesiis legitur quod 
Septuaginta nescierunt; cur me non suscipiant Latini mei, qui invio- 
lata editione veteri ita novam condidi, ut laborem meum Hebraeis et, 
quod his majus est, apostolis auctoribus probem 2 » • * • Christus Do- 
minus noster, utriusque Testamenti conditor, in Evangelio secundum 
Johannem, Qui credit, inquit, in me, sicut dicit scriptura, flumina de 
ventre ejus fluent aquce vivce. Utique scriptum est, quod Salvator scrip - 
tum esse testatur. Ubi scriptum est ? Septuaginta non habent ; apo- 
crypha nescit ecclesiai. Ad Hebraeos igitur rcvcrtcndum est, unde et 
Dominus loquitur, et discipuli exempla praesumunt. — Pracfat. Hierony- 
mi in Paralipom. Opera, Vol. i. pp. 1022, 1023.] 


thereof, both for the seventy, and for the evangelist that followed them, 
neither doubting of the truth thereof, nor controlling them " by the 
authority of Moses" (as Beza speaketh), that is, by the Hebrew. Others 
say concerning Cainan, that Moses might leave liim out in the gene- 
alogy of Shem by the instinct of the same Spirit, that St Matthew left Matt. i. 
out three kings in the genealogy of our Saviour. Where if a man 
would control the evangelist by the Hebrew of the Old Testament 
that is read in the books of the Kings, he should be as wise and as 
honest a man as Beza. Lastly, venerable Bede thinketh it sufficient P^^f. in Act. 
in tliis very difficulty of Cainan to marvel at it reverently, rather than 
to search it dangerously. And thus far of picking quarrels to the 
origmal text, and their good will to alter and change it as they list, 
if they might be suffered. 

Fulke. Here of pity you will shew unto us a piece of learn- Fulke, 
ing, how the fathers reconcile the said Hebrew and Greek ^2- 
without violence to the text, as they do always, or else leave 
the matter to God. 

First, St Augustine, De Civitate, hb. 18, cap. 43. De Docf. 
Chr. lib. 2, cap. 15, of their agreement, notwithstanding they 
were separated mto several cells, gathereth, that those Septua- 
gints were inspired with the same prophetical spu'it of inter- 
preting, that the prophets were in foreshowing. But this doth 
St Jerome utterly deny, and derideth the gromid of this pea^^JSi. 
imagination, those seventy-two cells at Alexandria, as a fable 
and a he. That St Ambrose saith, " we have found that many 
things are not idly added of the seventy Greek interpreters ;" p^^"'y''^- 
we confess as much, where their addition serveth for exph- 
cation of that which is contained in the Hebrew : and so 
meaneth Ambrose ; not that they had authority to add any 
tiling, which Moses had omitted. And we acknowledge with 
St Jerome, that there may be many reasons given for the 
difference of the one from the other. But concerning tliis 
place of St Luke now in question, you say he giveth a reason 
thereof, both for the LXX. and for the evangehst that fol- 
lowed them, neither doubting of the truth thereof, nor con- 
trolUng them by the authority of Moses. And for this you 
quote Comment, in 28 Esa. and in Question. Hehrai. in neither 
of wliich places is any mention of this place, much less any 
reason given to reconcile it or the Septuagint with the 
Hebrew. It seemeth, you read not the books yourself, but 
trusted too much some man's collection, which you understood 
not. In the preface to the Hebrew Questions Jerome ex- 


cuseth himself against envious persons, tliat barked against 
him as though he did nothing but reprove the errors of the 
LXX., saying, " That he thinketh not liis labour to be a 
reprehension of them, seeing they would not express unto 
Ptolemffius, king of Alexandria, certain mystical things in 
the scriptures, and especially those things which promised 
the coming of Christ, lest the Jews might have been thought 
to worship another God, whom that follower of Plato there- 
fore did greatly esteem, because they were said to worship 
but one God. But the evangelists also, and our Lord and 
Saviour, and St Paul the apostle, bring forth many things, 
as it were out of the Old Testament, which are not had in 
our books, of which in their due places we will more fully 
discuss. Whereof it is clear, that those are the more true 
examples, which agree with the authority of the New Testa- 
ment." Thus much Jerome in that place ; but neither in 
liis questions upon Genesis, nor 1 Parahp. the proper places 
for tliis text, is there any mention of this place of Luke, qui 
fmt Cainan. In the place cited by you upon the 28th of 
Isaiah, he saith, Legimus in apostolo, ^c. " We read in the 
apostle, ' In other tongues and hps will I speak to this 
people, and neither so shall they hear me, saith the Lord :' 
which seemeth to me to be taken out of this present chapter, 
according to the Hebrew. And tliis we have observed in 
the Old Testament, except a few testimonies which only Luke 
useth otherwise, wliich had knowledge of the Greek tongue 
rather wheresoever any thing is said out of the Old Testament, 
that they set it not according to the LXX., but according to 
the Hebrew, following the translation of no man, but turning 
the sense of the Hebrew into their own speech." You see 
that Jerome saith nothing particularly ; and that which he 
saith generally, concerneth this place nothing at all. And 
very like it is, that this corruption was not crept into St 
Luke's text in his time, especially seeing neither St Ambrose 
in his Commentary upon St Luke once toucheth this contro- 
versy, as he doth all other questions about that genealogy. 
Where you say, St Jerome was "a great patron of the Hebrew, 
not without cause, being at that time perhaps the Hebrew 
verity indeed ;" it is without perhaps, or peradventure, that 
not one iota or prick of the law of God can perish, by the 
testimony of our Saviour Christ, Matthew v. And if you 


will believe Arias Montanus^ an excellent learned papist, he 
will tell you as much, out of the same text doubtless, in his 
preface unto the great bible by him set out, with diligent 
observation of all the accents and Hebrew points, which Christ 
(saith he) will never suffer to perish. And if the Hebrew 
verity were in Jerome's time (as doubtless it was), whether 
he had a perfect copy thereof or no, the same Arias Mon- 
tanus testifieth, if you dare credit him, being one of your sect 
for opinion, though in sincerity of mind and love of the truth, 
which I pray to God to reveal unto him, I think him far 
better than a number of you ; he (I say) affirmeth in the 
same preface, against the objection that is made of the Jews' 
corruption of the Hebrew books: Etenim apud nonnull. " For 
we read in some authors that, through the fraud and impulsion . 
of the spirit of error, some of the nation of the Jews in 
times past were brought to that point of insolence or madness, 
that in the beginning of the christian chm'ch they changed 
some words, which miffht altoojether break off that their con- 
tention of impugning the christian verity. But those places 
so defiled by them were very few ; and in the books of our 
writers, and also in the copies both printed and written of 
the Jews themselves, are all for the most part noted and 
shewed out. For although either by the fraud of those men, 
or by the ignorance of the book-writers, or by injury of the 
times, some change hath been made in the Hebrew books 
which we use ; yet is there not one word, nor one letter, nor 
point, that is mentioned to have been of old time, which is 
not found to have been safely kept in that most rich treasury, 
which they call the Mazzoreth. For in that, as in an holy 
and faithful custody, appointed with uttermost diligence and 
great study, the remnants, monuments, tokens, steps, and 
examples of the ancient reading are all contained, and the 
way how to compare the old and new reading is shewed ; 
of which truly, being compared together, a very certain way 

\} Nam praeter excellenteni formarum, chartae, et characterum 
praestantiam, integras etiam Chaldaicas in veteri Testamento paraphra- 
ses, et Syriacae in novo lectionis libros, eosdemque dUigenti studio et 
censura examinatos, et commoda Latinarum interpretationum copia in- 
structos, opus hoc Complutensibus Bibliis addit; et quod ad lectionis 
et sententiarum distmctionem explicationemque plurimum confert, ac- 
centus omnes, Hebraicosque apices, (quos nunquam perire Christus 
patietur,) diligentissime observatos adjungit. — Praefatio, fol. 26.] 


is extant, to the prescript rule whereof the holy mysteries 
may be shewed forth, examples whereof sometime in this 
work, in due place, and elsewhere also, with God's help, we 
will set forth." Thus far Arias Montanus, whose judgment 
if you say you are not bound to follow, yet I suppose you 
can yield no sufficient reason, why you should not credit his 
testimony concerning the certainty of the Hebrew verity, 
remaining to this day, and which shall remain to the world's 
end, although all the smatterers among you would burst for 
spite against it. Concerning the opinion of them which think, 
that Moses might leave out Cainan in the Genealogy of Shem 
by the same Spirit that Matthew left out three kings in the 
genealogy of our Saviour, I answer. If it be lawful so to 
imagine, we may without study answer all controversies ; 
although the same reason is not of Moses, compiling a certain 
accomit of the time from the flood to the calling of Abraham, 
and of Matthew, shewing by the legal descent, which every 
man might take out of the books of Kings and Chronicles, 
that Christ was the son of David, and therefore he was not 
bound to the number of successors, seeing for memory it was 
liis purpose to recite but thrice fourteen generations. 

That Bede marvelleth at the doubt which he could not 
dissolve, his modesty is to be commended rather than liis 
knowledge. Nevertheless the same Bede^, in his preface 
unto his Retractation upon the Acts of the Apostles, speaking 
of such difference as he found in the Greek text of the Acts 
from the Latin, he saith : Quae utrum negligentia interpretis 
omissa, Sfc. "Which things, whether they were omitted through 
neghgence of the interpreter, or otherwise uttered, or for lack 
of regard of the writers depraved, or otherwise left, as yet 
we could not know. For I dare not so much as suspect 
that the Greek copy was falsified : wherefore I admonish the 
reader, that wheresoever we have done these things, he read 
them for liis learning ; yet that he interlace them not in his 

[} Quae utrum negligentia interpretis omissa, vel alitor dicta, an 
incuria librariorum sint depravata, sive relicta, nondum scire potni- 
mus. Namque Graecum exemplar fuisse falsatum, suspicari non audeo : 
imde lectorem admoneo, ut haec ubicunque fecerimus, gratia eruditionis 
legat, non in suo tamen volumiae velut cmendatos interserat, nisi forte 
ea in Latino codice sute editionis antiquitus sic interpretata repererit. — 
Praefatio ad Retractationem in Acta Apostolorum. Bedas Opera, Vol. 
VI. p. 1. edit. Colonise Agrippinae. 1612.] 


book, as places corrected, except perhaps he shall find the 
same in some Latin book of a pecuhar edition, to have been 
of old so interpreted." This place sheweth that in Bede's 
time there were more Latin translations than one, and that 
the vulgar Latin was not of such authority, but that it might 
be corrected by the Greek, with the consent of other ancient 
Latin translations. Likewise upon the text in question, 
hb. 1, in Luc. cap. 3^, he confesseth that the name and gene- 
ration of Cainan, according to the Hebrew verity, is found 
neither in Genesis nor in the Chronicles ; saying that St 
Luke took this generation from the edition of the Septuagint. 
But whether is the truer, or whether both can be true, he 
leaveth it to the knowledge of God ; noting that whereas, 
according to the Hebrew verity, from the flood to the birth, 
of Abraham there were but 292 years, the LXX. make 
1077, so that the difference is no less than of 785 years. 

But to favour this fact of Beza, in putting out the name of 
Cainan, there is an ancient copy of the Gospels and Acts in 
Greek and Latin, of as great antiquity by all likehhood as 
any copy this day extant m Christendom, sent unto the 
university of Cambridge this last year by Beza himself, 
there to be kept in the common hbrary, in which copy this 
generation of Cainan, both in the Greek and in the Latin, 
is clean left out, even as Beza hath done in liis translation. 
So that he hath not only the authority of Moses, which of 
itself is sufficient, but also the testimony of this most ancient 
book, both for the Greek and for the Latin, to approve his 
fact in putting out qui fmt Cainan. What your vulgar 

P Nomen et generatio Cainan, juxta Hebraicam veritatem, neque in 
Genesi neque in verbis Dierum invenitur ; sed Arphaxat Sala vel Sale 
filium, nullo interposito, genuisse perhibetur. Sic enim habes: Porro 
Arphaxat vixit triginta annos et genuit Sale. Itemque in Paralipo- 
menon, Arphaxat autem genuit Sala, qui et ipse genuit Heber. Scito 
ergo beatum Lucam banc generationem de Septuaginta interpretum 
editione sumpsisse, ubi scriptum est, quod Arphaxat centum trigin- 
ta quinque annorum genuerit Cainan, et ipse Cainan, cum 130 fuerit 
annorum, genuerit Sala. Sed quid horum sit verius, aut si utrum- 
que verum esse possit, Deus noverit. Nos simpliciter admonemus lec- 
torem, tantam inter utrosque codices in serie temporum esse discre- 
pantiam, ut a diluvio usque ad nativitatem Abrahse in Hebraica veritate 
anni ccxcii, in Septuaginta interpretum translatione m. septuaginta sep- 
tem reperiantur esse comprehensi. — Beda in Lucae Evangelium, cap. iii. 
Opera, Vol. v. pp. 256-7.] 


Latin translation hath left out in the latter end of the Lord's 
prayer m St Matthew, and in the beginning and midst in 
St Luke, whereby that heavenly prayer is made imperfect, 
not comprehending all tilings that a christian man ought to 
pray for, beside many other like omissions, whether of pur- 
pose, or of negligence, and injmy of time, yet still by you 
defended, I spare to speak of in tliis place. 


The 5th 
abuse of 
which is the 
and purpose 
of this book. 




Martin. Which also may be proved by all their false translations 
(being the principal point I mean to speak of) most evidently. For 
as now they translate falsely to their purpose, because they cannot 
alter the text; so Avould they, if it were possible, have the text 
agreeable to then- translation. For example, he that translateth "or- 
dinances," when it is in the original Greek text "justifications" and 
"traditions,'' he would rather that it were "ordinances" also in the 
Greek: but because he cannot bring that about, he doth at the least 
what he can, to make the ignorant believe it is so, by so translating it. 

FulJce. You shall never be able to prove by any transla- 
tion of ours (though perhaps in some we may err), that we have 
any purpose either to falsify the truth, or to change the 
text, though it were possible for us. In translating we have 
dealt with a good conscience, albeit not always peradventm-e 
we have attained to the full truth, which in translating out 
of one tongue into another is a very hard point throughly to 
observe. Your example of "ordinances" translated for that 
which in the Greek is "justifications" and "traditions," when you 
shew where and by whom it is so translated, you shall receive 
an answer. In the meantime I say, a translator that hath 
regard to interpret for the ignorant people's instruction, may 
sometimes depart from the etymology or common signification 
or precise tiu-ning of word for word, and that for divers 
causes. You yourselves translate not ecclesia always " the 
church," but sometimes the assembly ; nor seniores, " elders," 
but seniors, or ancients. Neither would you translate pres- 
byter always " a priest," if you translated the Old Testament. 
In the story of Susannah you would not call them priests, 
that laid wait for her honesty and hfe ; yet in your vulgar 
Latin they are called priests. So are they called 7rpe(j(ivr€poi 
in Greek in the New Testament, wliich you turn sometimes 
priests, sometimes ancients, and sometimes seniors. 

Martin. And this of all other is the most fine and subtle treachery 


against the scriptures, to deceive the ignorant readers withal, (which 
St Paul calleth " the secret things of dishonesty and adulterating of the 2 Cor. iv. 
word of God," as it were mingling water with wine, like false vintners,) 
when they give them for God's word, and under the name of God's 
word, their own words, and not God's,'forged and framed, altered and 
changed, according to differences of times, and variety of new opinions, 
and diversity of humours and spirits, diversely and differently, one 
heretic not only correcting his fellow every day, but one eagerly re- The here- 
futing and refelling another : Bucer and the Osiandrians and Sacra- sion about 
mentaries against Luther for false translations ; Luther against Munster, latlons^"^ 
Beza against Castalio, Castalio against Beza, Calvin against Servetus, Meian°"'' 
lUyricus both against Calvin and Beza. The puritans control the ^'g^- ^'''*[- 
grosser Calvinists of our country ; yea, the later translations of the ^^^ Zuing. 
selfsame heretics control the former exceedingly, not only of over- Confess, 
sights but of wilful falsifications ; as is notorious in the later editions rum. 
of Luther and Beza, and in our English bibles set forth in divers. 97! ' ^" 
years, from Tindal their first translator until this day : yea (which is xesliment 
more) the English translators of Beza's New Testament control him "1^1^^ ^^'^^ 
and his translation, wliich they protest to follow, being afraid some- Luke iii. 36. 
times and ashamed to express in English his false translations in the 

FulJce. By false translations wilfully and of purpose to Fulkb, 
falsify the truth of God's word is as gross and as abominable ^^' 
treachery, as to corrupt the very text; although I think St 
Paul, speaking of the covertures, or cloaks of chshonesty, and 
adultering of the word of God, 2 Cor. iv. meaneth a further 
cunning than false translations. That those whom you call 
heretics find fault with one another's translations, they do 
none otherwise than you popish heretics. Do not you, 
Gregory Martin, in the 7th chapter and 33rd section of 
tliis book, find fault with all the catholics, as you term them, 
that translate sheol, sepulchrum, "a sepulchre," and not always 'jn-:^ 
"hell"? If Bucer or Zuinghus do" justly observe any error in 
Luther, or Luther in Munster, or Beza in Castaho, the ana- 
baptist, or Calvin in Servetus, the horrible heretic, yea, and 
if froward and schismatical lUyricus can discover any error 
committed by Calvin and Beza, the truth loseth nothing, 
when the errors of men are found out, by what means 
soever. That you speak of the puritans controlhng the 
grosser Calvmists of our country, I know not what you mean, 
neither do I think you can justify your words, for trans- 
lation of the scriptures. Where you say, the later trans- 
lations of the selfsame heretics control the former exceed- 
ingly, not only of oversights, but of wilful falsifications, it 



Hexam. lib. 
6. cap. 4. 

is a wilful and impudent slander ; yet you blush not to say, 
it is notorious. How, I pray you ? You answer. In the later 
editions of Luther and Beza, and m our Enghsh bibles set 
forth in divers years, from Tyndal, their first translator. 
That Luther, Beza, and the later translators of the Enghsh 
bibles, have corrected some small faults that have escaped 
in their former editions, it may be granted. But do Luther 
and Beza therefore accuse themselves, or the later English 
translators the former, of wilful falsifications? I tliink those 
brute beasts, to whom Ambrose ^ ascribeth the art of making 
syllogisms (if they could speak), would not conclude thus 
brutishly. Certain it is that Balaam's ass did reason sub- 
stantially. But much more, you say, the Enghsh translators 
of Beza's New Testament do control him and his transla- 
tion, being sometimes afraid and ashamed to express his 
false translations. If it be so, they are more modest than 
you, which seem to be afraid or ashamed of nothing so 
much, as lest you might seem to fail in unshamefacedness. 
But to the purpose. If they thinlc Beza (as all men may 
err) hath somewhat trodden awry, is it a fault to avoid his 
step, or a proud controlhng or accusing him of falsification ? 
Nevertheless, whereinsoever Luther, Beza, or the Enghsh 
translators, have reformed any of their former oversights, 
the matter is not so great, that it can make an heresy. 
Yea, if you were of St Augustine's judgment, you would 
acknowledge that the multitude and diversity of translations 
is for the benefit of them that be ignorant in the tongues, 
yea, and of them also that be learned in them oftentimes, 
that of divers men's translations they may judge which is 
the aptest. 

Martin. But in this catalogue of dissensions, falsifiers, and dis- 
agreeing translators, I will not greatly rip up old faults, neither abroad 
ii. 23,'iii.2i. uor at lioHie. I leave Luther's false translations mto the German 
French"and' tongue to the Credit of Staphylus, Apolog., Part, ii., and Emserus, 
ruiftions'of P'>'eef' Annot. in no. Test. Luth., and other German writers of his own 

\} Ursa insidians licet, ut scriptura ait, (est enim plena fraudis fera,) 
tamen fertur informes utero partus edere, sed natos luigua fingere, at- 
que in speciem sui similitudinemque formare. Non miraris in fera tam 
pii oris officia, cujus naturam pietas exprimit? Ursa igitur partus suos 
ad sui effingit similitudinem : tu filios tuos instituere simUes tui non 
potes? — Hexaemeron. Lib. vi. cap. 4. p. 18. Ambrosii Opera, Vol. i. 
p. 119.] 

De noct. 

Christ, lib. 
2. cap. 11. 



time, that saw them and read them, and reckoned the number of them, the New 
in the New Testament only about 1400 heretical corruptions. I leave See Lind. ' 
Calvin's and Beza's French corruptions to so many worthy men as8,'i"&c.'' 
have noted them in their French books against the said heretics : thfrest"'' 
Tindal's and his companions' corruptions in their first English bible, 
to our learned countrymen of that age, and namely to the right 
reverend father and confessor bishop Tonstal, who in a sennon openly 
protested that he had found in the New Testament only no less than 
two thousand. If we know it not, or will not believe it, strangers in Lind. Dub. 
their Latin Avritings testify it to the world. 

Fulke. We are much beholding to you, that you will not Fulke, 
rip up old faults abroad, nor at home ; and leave Luther's ^'^' 
Dutch translation with a 1400 heretical corruptions in the 
New Testament only, with Calvin's and Beza's French cor- 
ruptions noted by Vigor, and the rest : also Tyndal's and, 
his companions' corruptions in their first Enghsh bible, in 
whose translation of the New Testament bishop Tonstal pro- 
fessed openly in a sermon, that he found no less than two thou- 
sand corruptions. This you know he protested with the same 
tongue with which he forsware the pope, and sware to the 
king's supremacy, and with wliich he preached a solemn 
sermon, wliich is in print, before the king, against the pope's 
usurped tyranny, pride, false doctrine, covetousness, cruelty, 
treason, perverting of scriptures, as in the same sermon more 
at large it appeareth ; and therefore we need not Lindanus's 
writing to testify of his credit. But thanks be to God, 
that when you have scraped all that unto you seemed to 
have any shew of corruption, you cannot find two hundred 
faults in the translation of the whole bible, nor in three 
several translations of the same ; which points you are fain 
to dilate with such vain tautologies and repetitions, that 
all learned men are ashamed of your tedious writing : and yet, 
to make your book to be of some tolerable length, you had 
no better shift than to note a sort of Beza's corruptions in his 
Latin Testament; who, if you would write against him in 
Latin any thing worth the noting, would thank you for your 
pains, and reform liis errors ; but if you brought nothing but 
cavils, would so shake you up, as you should have small 
joy of your insolent invective : but you provided well for that, 
by writing against a Frenchman in Enghsh. And as for the 
number of errors or corruptions that you would have the 
ignorant believe to be in our English translations, you think 


is SO great, as must needs make the simple abhor it. But 
look homeward a little into your authentical vulgar Latin 
translation, how many faults be in that, which your Tridentine 
council hath authorised. And here I will not charge it with 
the adversaries thereof, as you do ours, but with great friends 
of it and your doctrine ; Lindanus, bishop of Ruremond, and 
Isidorus Clarius^ monk of Casine, and bishop Fulginatensis : of 
De Opt Gen. which the former writeth a whole book, discussing; how he 

interp. lib. i i i i • • 

3- would have the errors, vices, corruptions, additions, detractions, 

mutations, uncertainties, obscurities, pollutions, barbarisms, 
and solecisms of the vulgar Latin translation corrected and 
reformed ; bringing many examples of every kind, in several 
ti" to'the'^' ^^^^pt^^^ ^^d sections : the other, Isidorus Clarius, giving a 
ptntedat reason of his purpose, in castigation of the said vulgar Latin 
jL^^^ss't! translation, confesseth that it was full of errors almost innu- 
merable ; which if he should have reformed all according to the 
Hebrew verity, he could not have set forth the vulgar edition, 
as his purpose was. Therefore in many places he retaineth the 
accustomed translation, but in his annotations admonisheth the 
reader, how it is in the Hebrew. And, notwithstanding tliis 
moderation, he acknowledgeth that about eight thousand places 
are by liim so noted and corrected ^ This epistle the deputies 

P Isidore Clarius, or de Clario, bishop of Foligno, bom in 1495, 
in his youth a Benedictine of the monastery of Mount-Cassin. He dis- 
tinguished himself greatly by his eloquence and talent on several occasions, 
principally at the council of Trent, in the disputes upon the authority 
of the text and versions of scripture. After having discussed the 
different translations, he decides that none of them are eqmvalent to 
the text of the original, though the version of Jerome, having been 
used for a thousand years in the church, was entitled to preference over 
the rest. In consequence of his stating m his Preface to an edition of 
the Vulgate (1542) that he had corrected eight thousand passages in 
it, his work was put among the prohibited, but subsequently allowed 
to be sold, with the suppression of the preface and prolegomena. 

The work to which Fulke here makes allusion is, Vulgata editio 

Veteris et Noin Tesiamenti, quorum alterum ad Hebraicam, alterum ad 

Grcecam veritatem emendatum est quam diligentissime, ut nova editio non 

facile desideretur, et vetus tamen hie agnoscatur. Venetiis. 1542, 1557, 

and 1564, fol.] 

P Nam in his horum omnium studiis atque laboribus editio ilia, qua 
totus Christianus orbis utitur, ac semper, ut facile conjocto,usurus est, 
nondum squalorem suum deposuerat, nee ei quisquam errores, quibus 
innumeris pene scatebat, adimere adhuc curaverat. " • " • Verum etsi ea. 


of the council of Trent could not abide ; and therefore in the 
later edition of this bible, set forth with observation of their 
censure, 1569, it is clean left out ; as also a goodly collection 
of the same Isidorus, of places of scripture, exhorting to the 
study of holy scripture, and a like sound confession of those 
things which the scriptures teach, &c. 

Martin. But I omit these, as unknown to our country or to this Martin, 
age, and will deal principally with the English translations of our time, 
which are in every man's hands within our country ; the corruptions The au- 
whereof, as they are partly touched here and there in the Annotations in*this book. 
upon the late new English Testament catholicly translated and printed 
at Rheims, so by occasion thereof I will by God's help, to the better 
commodity of the reader and evidence of the thing, lay them closer 
together, and more largely display them, not counting the number, 
because it were hard, but esteeming the weight and importance of so ' 
many as I thought good to note, specially in the New Testament. 
Where I have to advertise the reader of certain special things, which 
he must observe. 

FulJce. You should rather omit them as untrue ; for albeit Fulke, 
it cannot be denied but some faults may escape the most 
faithful and diligent translator, yet so many heretical corrup- 
tions, either in the Dutch or English, are incredible, and turn 
rather to the discredit of the accuser, in all wise men's judg- 
ment, than to the parties so charged; in like manner as 
Surius^ noteth no less than eleven thousand lies in Sleidan, 

quam diximus, usi fuerimus moderatione, loca tamen ad octo millia 
annotata atque emendata a nobis sunt. — ;Isid. Clarii Praefat. In Vulg. 
Edit. 1542.] 

[^ The following passage wiU enable the reader to estimate the 
value of the opinion of Surius : 

Pestis hoc anno multis locis plurimos extinxit, praesertim Argen- 
tinse et in locis Rhenanis, et inter alios etiam Johannem Sleidanum, 
qui suis commentariis magnam orbi Christiano pestem invexit. Decre- 
verant contra Ulum scribere viri duo longe clarissimi, Coloniae Agrip- 
pinae preclara lumina, Johannes GrofFerus designatus CardinaUs, et 
Eberhardus Billicus Carmelitanus Provincialis, si et Sleidano et ipsis 
vita prolixior contigisset. Nemo me putet hominis illius odio saepius 
ilium perstringere. Mihi ille nee de facie unquam notus fuit. Men- 
dacia et errores tetros Ulius detestor. Multi, immo plurimi, norunt 
Julium Pflugium Numbergensem Episcopum, quo oh multam aetatem 
nemo fere melius noverat res imperii. Is Sleidani Commentarios 
volebat sibi a quodam mihi notissimo, qui turn in ejus aula versaba- 
tur, legi. Porro vero inter legendum cum advertere res ipsi notas mala 
fide a Sleidano narrari, saepius exclamabat, Ibi nebulo ille scelerate 




ments to the 






(more to his own reproach, than to the defacing of Sleidan's 
credit,) you profess wisely, therefore, not to count the num- 
ber, but to esteem the weight and importance of such faults 
as you thought good to note, if there were as great faithfulness 
in your performance, as there is wisdom in your profession. 
But now to your nine advertisements to the reader. 

Martin. First, that in this book he may not look for the proof 
or expUcation and deciding of controversies, which is done in the 
Annotations upon the New Testament, but only the rcfutuig or con- 
trolling of their false translations concerning the said controversies, 
which is the peculiar argument of this treatise. 

FulJce. I think there is no wise reader would look for 
the deciding of so many controversies in so small a book ; and 
he that shall seek them in your Annotations, shall find even 
as httle to the purpose, except he will take your determina- 
tion without proof for a sufficient decision. As for the doc- 
tors you quote without judgment, fraudulently, falsely, trun- 
cately, and otherwise abusively, [they] have all, or the most, 
been answered long ago ; and if need shall be, with little 
labour may be answered again. 

Martin. Secondly, that we refute sometime one of their transla- 
tions, sometime another, and eveiy one as their falsehood giveth occa- 
sion. Neither is it a good defence for the falsehood of one, that it is 
truly translated in another; the reader being deceived by any one, 
because commonly he readeth but one. Yea, one of them is a con- 
demnation of the other. 

Fulke. That sheweth yom- mahce rather than either 
wisdom or honesty ; for if we ourselves in our later trans- 
lations have corrected some small and few errors, that have 
overslipped us in our former translations, we have shewed 
our sincerity and care of setting out the truth by all means. 
And where you say it is no good defence, the reader being 

mentitur. Quin et Carolus V. integerrimus et potentissimus imperator, 
cum ipsi quoque legerentur Commentarii Sleidani, itidem subinde ex- 
clamabat, Nebulo ille mentitur, nebulo ille mentitur. Et sane datimi 
erat ab eodem imperatore negotium cuidam, ut comitiorum acta, ob 
Sleidani mendacia confutanda, sincere excuderentur ; sed nescio quo 
casu res ilia impedita fuit, et omnia in Hispanas transferri jussa fe- 
runtur. Certe hseretico homini nunquam tuto credi potest. — Surii 
Commentarius brevis rerum in orbe gestarum, pp. 870, 371. Colonise. 


deceived by any one, because commonly he readeth but one; 
I answer you first, there is not in the worst translation any 
fault escaped, that may of itself lead him into a damnable 
error. Secondly, he hath the word of God expounded by 
catechising, sermons, and lectures, in which he may learn 
the substance of christian rehgion. Thirdly, he hath at 
hand every where learned divines, unto whose counsel he 
may resort, if he be offended with anytliing that he readeth 
in his bible, sounding contrary to the pubhcly received doc- 
trine of the chm'ch. In that you say the one of our trans- 
lations condemneth the other, it had been sufficient to have 
said, reproveth : which is only where there is a manifest error 
in the one ; for otherwise, the diversities of translations, (as 
St Augustine teacheth you,) may much profit the simple . 
readers ; and they that be diligent students of the scriptures 
in the Enghsh tongue wUl not satisfy themselves with every 
translation, but will seek for the best approved. 

Martin. Thirdly, that we speak indifferently against Protestants, Martin, 
Calvinists, Bezites, and Puritans, without any curious distinction of29- 
them, being all among themselves brethren and pew-fellows^ and 
sometime the one sort of them, sometime the other, more or less 
corrupting the holy scriptures. 

FulJce. A wise advertisement. But tliis is to be noted, Fulke, 
that now you acknowledge them to be all brethren among " 
themselves, and pew-fellows ; but when you hst, they shall 
be at deadly feud one against another, and no commimity 
or fellowship between them. 

Martin. Fourthly, that we give but a taste of their corruptions. Wart in, 
not seeing so far, nor marking all so narrowly and skilfully, as them- ^ ■ 
selves know their own subtleties and meanings, who will smile at the 
places which we have not espied. 

Fulke. He that considereth your quarrels picked to words Fclke, 
of one signification, as "church" and " congregation," "justice" 
and "righteousness," "elder" and "priest," "image" and "idol," 
"works" and " deeds," and such hke, will not think that you 
have passed over any great matters worth the writing of ; but 
that you would set a vain brag of the case, as though there 
were much worse matter than you have wit to conceive. Yet 
you say confidently that we, as guilty of our own subtleties 
and meanings, will smile at the places which you have not 




espied. You are like to those soothsayers mentioned in 
Tully, of whom one said that he marvelled if, when they met 
together, one of them did not smile upon another, because 
they deluded the city, and got themselves much honour with 
such vain superstitions. So you, being newly become subtle 
and partial translators, think other mien to be like your- 
selves. But even as the head of yom' church^ once jested 
with his cardinal, how great wealth and honoiu' that fable 
of Christ (so the beast called the christian religion) had 
brought them; even so you, his lewd limbs, make sport 
among yourselves of the holy word of God, wliich you have 
corrupted somewhat with your blind translations, but much 
more with your heretical annotations. So said your great 
friend, Campion, in open audience, that he could make as 
good sport upon the incarnation of Christ. According to 
your own affection, therefore, you judge of us, and not 
according to the truth, as the day will try, when the secrets 
of all hearts shall be made manifest. 

Martin, Martin. Fifthly, that the very use and affectation of certain terms> 

31' and avoiding other some, though it be no demonstration against them, 

but that they may seem to defend it for true translation, yet was it 

necessary to be noted, because it is and hath been always a token of 

heretical meaning. 

FuLKE, Fulh. When our translation is true, I doubt not but 


we shaU defend the use of some terms, and the avoiding of 
other some, by as good reason as you shall defend the like 
in your translations ; especially where you affect new terms 
unused, or not understood, and avoid common and usual terms 
of the same signification, as evangcHzing for preaching the 
gospel; advent of Christ for the coming of Clirist; scandaHzing 
for offending; scandal for offence, &c. Which if it be, as you 
say, always a token of heretical meaning, first pluck yourself 
by the nose, and then see if we cannot defend our doings. 

Martin, Martin. Sixthly, that in explicating these things we have endea- 

voured to avoid, as much as was possible, the tediousness of Greek and 
Hebrew words, which are only for the learned in these tongues, and 
which made some little doubt whether this matter (which of necessity 
must be examined by them) were to be written in English or no. 
But being persuaded by those (who themselves have no skill in the 
said tongues) that every reader might reap commodity thereby, to the 
understanding and detesting of such false and heretical translations, it 

p This is told of Leo X] 



was thought good to make it vulgar and common to all our dear 
countrymen; as the New Testament itself is common, whereof this 
discovery is as it were a handmaid, attending thereupon for the larger 
explication and proof of corruptions there briefly touched, and for 
supply of other some not there mentioned. 

Fulke. He that seeth your margin painted with Greek Fulke, 
and Hebrew words in so many places, may guess whether it 
were possible for you to have avoided the tediousness of 
them, when in divers places the Greek and Hebrew words are 
set without all need of them, and sometimes where there is 
no controversy about them, as in the fifth section of this 
preface, where you shew the corruptions of the Arians and 
Pelagians; and in the nineteenth section, where you would 
shew the difference of the New Testament from the Old in 
citinof of testimonies. But the Hebrew word in the Psalm 
xxi, or xxii., which you falsely say signifieth no such thing as 
" piercing," you set not down, lest your falsehood, by them that 
have skill, might be convmced. And if you had cared as 
much to find out the truth, as to shew your skiU in both the 
tongues, you would have written in Latin, especially against 
Beza, which never wrote in Enghsh. And vain it is, that you 
pretend to make the matter common to your dear country- 
men, that be unlearned ; for the judgment must rest in them 
that have knowledge in the tongues, albeit you had written in 
Latiu. It is all one, therefore, to the unlearned, as if you 
had only said, there are many faults or corruptions, which in a 
Latin book shall be cHscovered to the judgment of the learned, 
seeing the ignorant cannot understand your demonstrations. 

Martin. Seventhly, that all the English corruptions here noted and Martin, 
refuted are either in all or some of their English Bibles printed in 
these years, 1562^, 1577^ 1579'*. And if the corruption be in one bible, 
not in another, commonly the said bible or bibles are noted in the 
margin : if not, yet sure it is that it is in one of them, and so the reader 
shall find it, if he find it not always in his own bible. And in this case 
the reader must be very wise and circumspect, that he think not by 
and by we charge them falsely, because they can shew him some later 
edition that hath it not so as we say. For it is their common and 

P The great bible, or that of Coverdale's translation, first printed 
in 1635, and reprinted by Cranmer's direction 1539. The edition of 
1662, revised by Parker, will be quoted in the present volume for the 
Old, and that of 1639 for the New Testament, as the case may require.] 

P The Genevan and Bishops' bible were each printed in this year.] 



known fasliion, not only in their translations of the bible, but in their 
other books and writings, to alter and change, add and put out, in their 
later editions, according as either themselves are ashamed of the former, 
or their scholars, that print them again, dissent and disagree from their 
masters. So hath Luther, Calvin, and Beza's writings and trans- 
lations been changed both by themselves and their scholars in many 
places; so that catholic men when they confute that which they find 
evident faults in this or that edition, fear nothing more than that the 
reader hath some other edition, where they are corrected for very 
shame, and so may conceive that there is no such thing, but that they 
Touchinsj are accused wrongfully. For example : call to mind the late pretended 
E^hOeT conference in the tower, where that matter was denied and faced out 
for Luther's credit, by some one book or edition of his, which them- 
selves and all the world knoweth, was most truly laid to his charge. 

FuLKE, Fulke. First, this is untrue ; for some you have noted in 

the New Testament printed 1580. Secondly, it is uncertain ; 
for two of these translations might be printed in one year, and 
so I think they were. Therefore I know not well which you 
mean ; but I guess that the bible 1562 is that which was of 
Doctor Coverdale's translation, most used in the church service 
in king Edward's time. The bible 1577, I take to be that 
which, being revised by divers bishops, was first printed in the 
large volume, and authorised for the churches, about ten or 
twelve years ago^. That of 1579^, I know not what translation 
it be, except it be the same that was first printed at Geneva 
in the beginning of the queen's majesty's reign. And this 
conjecture, as the fittest I can make, I must follow, seeing 
your note of distinction is as good as that fellow's, that would 
know his master's horse by the bridle. 

But it is a common and known fasliion, you say, used of 
us, that not only in translations, but in other books and writ- 
ings of ours, we alter and change, add and put to, in our later 
editions. And who useth not so to do, if by later cogitations, 
that often are wiser, he find anything meet to be changed? 
Do not you papists use the same? Is Bristow's chapter of 
obedience, in his Motives, nothing altered from the high treason 
contained in the first edition ? Is nothing added, taken away, 
or changed in your Jesus' Psalter, in any of your editions? Or 
are you yourselves ashamed of the former? Or have your 

[} Commonly called tlie Bishops' bible.] 

[^ It is the Genevan bible printed at Edinburgli in this year, that 
Martin quotes.] 


scholars presumed to alter their masters' writings ? If you 
have an evasion in these cases, I trust we are not so pent in, 
but we may change our own writings without shame of the 
former, or corruption in the latter. As for the example of 
St James' epistle, denied (as you say) and faced out for 
Luther's credit, [it] will serve you for no proof. For so far 
off is it, that we or the world do know, that it was most truly 
laid to his charge, that now we know of a certainty, that it 
was a very slander, as false as it was common; seeing Luther's 
words of that epistle are not absolute, but in comparison, as 
is confessed by you, and found by some of us to be none 
otherwise in deed, who have not stood upon one only book 
or edition, but upon as many as they could come by, both in 
the Latin and in the Dutch tongue. 

Martin. Eighthly, in citing Beza, I mean always (unless I note Martin, 
otherwise) his Latin translation of the New Testament, with his "^^• 
annotations adjoined thereunto, printed in the year 1556. 

Fulke. You were afraid, lest they that understood not Fulke, 
Latin, for whose sake you wrote in Enghsh tliis treatise, might 
take hurt by Beza's translations and annotations in Latin. 
And if he liimseh' have espied and corrected any thing of 
his first edition, that was either faulty or offensive, in his 
two later editions ; with great equity, as though you were 
the only man that had discovered his errors, you must let ^"''.is'^te''. 

•J ^ . edition l.'ft). 

all the unlearned in England know, what shameful corruptions X^t'camal 
you have observed in Beza's translation or annotations. Greek"and^ 

in the vulgar 

Martin. Lastly and principally is to be noted, that we will not i\I.\nTix, 
charge them with falsifying that which indeed is the true and authen- "^'^• 
tical scripture, I mean the vulgar Latin bible, which so many years We charge 
hath been of so great authority in the church of God, and with all withVorsak- 
the ancient fathers of the Latin church, as is declared in the preface approved'' 
of the New Testament : though it is much to be noted, that as Luther, Jifo'ighTt'be 
only in favour of his heresies, did wilfully forsake it, so the rest a"j''/tj"ir 
followed, and do follow him at this day, for no other cause in the world, evident con- 
but that it is against them. And therefore they inveigh against it, and 
against the holy Council of Trent, for confirming the authority thereof, Pi'l!';^'''"*' 
both in their special treatises thereof, and in all their writings where 
they can take any occasion. 

Fulke. In the margin, " You will not charge us with for- Filkk, 
saking the old approved Latin text, though it be an ill sign '^•'- 



and to our evident confusion." St Augustine^, although a mere 
Latin man, whom you yourself do after confess to have un- 
derstood but one tongue well, and that was even his mother 
tongue, learned (as he confesseth) of his nurses, is not so 
addicted to the Latin translation, but that he would have 
men to seek to the Hebrew and Greek fountains, which you, 
like a blaphemous hypocrite, deny to be the true and authen- 
tical scriptures indeed ; allowing only the vulgar Latin trans- 
lation, as though neither the churches of Greece, Syria, Ar- 
menia, ^Ethiopia, nor any other in the world, which have not 
the vulgar Latin, had not the true and authentical scriptures. 
And though your vulgar Latin hath for many years been of 
great authority in the Latin church, from the time when the 
knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek tongues have decayed ; 
yet is it utterly false, that you say, that it hath been of great 
authority with all the fathers of the Latin church ; whereas 
there is not one that lived within 400 years after Christ that 
knew it, but almost every one followed a several translation. 
And St Augustine in the place before cited telleth you, that 
there were innumerable translations out of the Greek into 
the Latin. Again, that your vulgar Latin is full of many 
errors and corruptions, I have shewed by the confession of 
Isidorus Clarius and Lindanus, two of your own profession ; 
of wliich the one took pains by the Hebrew and Greek to 
correct it, the other shewed means how it should be corrected. 
And where you say that Luther and his followers forsook it 
for none other cause in the world, but that it is against them, 
it is utterly untrue. For beside that they have made clear 
demonstration of many palpable errors therein, (which they 
that have any forehead amongst you cannot deny,) they have 
and do daily convince you of horrible heresies, even out of 
your own corrupt vulgar translation. Finally, whosoever shall 
read what Calvin and Kemnitius have written against the 

[^ Ex hac Septuaginta interpretatione etiam in Latinam linguam 
interpretatum est, quod ecclesise Latinae tenent. Quamvis non defuerit 
temporibus nostris presbyter Hieronymus, homo doctissimus et om- 
nium trium linguarum peritus, qui non ex Graco, sed ex Hebraeo in 
Latinum eloquium easdem scripturas converterit. — Augustinus, De 
Civitate Dei. Lib. xviii. c. 43. Opera, Vol. vii. p. 525. See also the 
passage from Augustine De Doctrina Christiana, Lib. ir. c. 11. Opera, 
Vol. I. pars 1. pp. 24, 25, quoted at p. 47, begimiing, Contra ignota, &c.] 


council of Trent for authorising that translation, shall plainly 
see that tliej had something else to allege against it, which 
notlung at all concerneth their opinions, that be contrary to 
the popish heresy. 

Martin. And concerning their wilful and heretical avoiding thereof Martin, 
in their new translations, what greater argument can there be than this, 2^* 
that Luther, who before always had read with the cathohc church and 
with all antiquity these words of St Paul, " Have not we power to i Cor. ix. 
lead about a woman a sister, as also the rest of the apostles 1" and sororem. 
in St Peter these words, " Labour that by good works you may make ^^' ' 
sure your vocation and election ;" suddenly, after he had contrary to 
his profession taken " a mfe" (as he called her), and preached that all 
other votaries might do the same, and that faith only justified, "good 
works" were not necessary to salvation ; suddenly, I say, after he fell . 
to these heresies, he began to read and translate the former scriptures 
accordingly, thus : " Have not we power to lead about a sister a wipe, 
as the rest of the apostles 1" and, " Labour that you may make sure 
your vocation and election :" leaving out the other words, " by good 
works." And so do both the Calvioists abroad, and our English Pro- 
testants at home read and translate at this day, because they hold the 
self-same heresies. 

Fulke. If there be no greater argument, as you confess Fulke, 
there can be none, that their avoiding of this vulgar Latin ' 
is wilful and heretical, than this, that Luther defended his 
marriage, being a votary, by that text of 1 Cor. ix. wherein 
the apostle chaUengeth power to lead about with him a sister 
to wife, which your text hath mulierem sororem, " a woman a 
sister ;" and that to prove that faith only justifieth, and good 
works are not necessary to salvation, he left out of the text of 
St Peter " good works/' by which the apostle exhorteth us 
to make sure unto ourselves our vocation and election ; there 
is none argument at all of wilful, needless, or heretical avoid- 
ing. For although the marriage of ecclesiastical ministers 
generally is proved by that scripture, yet the marriage of 
votaries specially is nothmg confirmed. And for the marriage 
of bishops, priests and deacons, your own translation" of 1 Tim. 
iii. and Tit. i., both Latin and English, will warrant them to 

[^ It behoveth therefore a bishop to be irreprehensible, the husband 
of one wife. 1 Tim. i. 2. And shouldest ordain priests by cities, as I 
also appointed thee ; if any be without crime, the husband of one wife. 
Titus i. 5, 6. Rhemish Test. 1557.] 


be the husbands of one wife ; so that every child may see 
that he needed not for that purpose to corrupt the text, 1. Cor. 
ix. And as for the other texts, 2 Pet. i., although this word, 
"by good works," is not expressed in the most Greek copies', 
yet the whole circumstance of the place giveth it necessarily 
to be understood ; and yet it maketh notliing against justifi- 
cation by faith only. For our election, which is most certain 
and immutable in God's determination, is made certainly known 
unto us by good works, the fruits of justifying faith, even 
as the eifects do necessarily prove the cause gone before. And 
so doth Thomas Matthew's bible note, likewise the Bishops' 
bible, and the Geneva bible ; for so I had rather call them, 
than by the years in which they were once printed, which have 
been often printed, and perhaps all in some one year. Cover- 
dale's bible also addeth these words, "by good works," which 
is read in some Greek copies. So true it is that you say, 
we leave it out, because we hold the self-same heresy : as like- 
wise that you slander us to hold, that good works are not 
necessary to salvation; whereas we believe that good works 
are as necessary to salvation as faith, in all them that are 
justified by faith only. But because you are not able to with- 
stand the truth which we believe, you feign odious monsters, 
as dragons, centaurs, hydras, to fight withal before the peoj»le, 
that you might get the praise of glorious conquerors, like St 
George on horseback, that in a pageant vanquisheth an hide- 
ous dragon made of paper or painted clothes. 

INIartin, Martin. So do they in infinite places alter the old text, which 

pleased them well before they were heretics ; and they do it with brasen 
faces and plain protestation, having no shame nor remorse at all in 
fleeing from that which aU antiquity with one consent allowed and 
embraced until their unliappy days. Which though it be an evident 
condemnation of their novelties in the sight of any reasonable man, 
that hath any grace ; yet as I began to admonish thee, gentle reader, 
we will not charge them for altering the ancient approved Latin trans- 
lation, because they pretend to follow the Hebrew and Greek ; and our 
purpose is not here to prove that they should not follow the Hebrew 
and Greek that now is, before the ancient approved Latin text, which 
is done briefly already in the preface to the New Testament. 

FuLKE, Fulke. You were afraid behke to be overmatched in rail- 

ing, and therefore you thought to bear us down at once 

[' It is not admitted into the text by either Griesbach or Scholz.] 



with a whole flood of reproachful slanders ; and that you utter 
even with the same face with which you affirm, that all an- 
tiquity with one consent allowed and embraced your vulgar 
Latin text : for what else you should mean I cannot con- 
jecture, seeing you say afterward you will not charge us for 
altering the ancient approved Latin translation. What say 
you, Martin? Doth all antiquity with one consent allow and 
embrace your vulgar Latin translation? What is the cause 
then that the most of all antiquity of the Latin church used 
not your vulgar Latin text ? Or dare you join issue with me, 
that all the Latin doctors for 400 years after Christ used 
none other Latin translation but that ? or that they aU knew 
your vulgar Latin translation? You are never able to prove it. 
The Seventy translation indeed was greatly esteemed, and > 
almost generally received in the Greek and Latin churches"^, 
and out of it were innumerable Latin versions, as St Augus- 
tine affirmeth. But your vulgar Latin followeth it not in 
many places, as it were easy to shew if time and occasion 
served, and I suppose you will not deny. As for the rea- 
sons you bring in the preface to the New Testament, to 
prove that we should not follow the Hebrew and Greek that 
now is, before that ancient approved text ; when they come 
to be considered, it shall appear how vain and frivolous they 
are. But as for the Hebrew and Greek that now is, [it] may 
easily be proved to be the same that always hath been ; 
neither is there any diversity in sentence, howsoever some 
copies, either through neghgence of the writer, or by any other 
occasion, do vary from that which is commonly and most 
generally received in some letters, syllables, or words. 

Martin. Neither will we burden them for not following the vulgar Martin, 
Latin text, when the same agreeth with most ancient Greek copies : '^'^• 
which notwithstanding is great partiality in them, and must needs be th/mn'or 
of an heretical wilful humour, that among the Greek copies themselves foriikin 
they reject that which most agreeth with the vulgar Latin text, in the Greek 

, ^ * copies that 

places of controversies. Yet will we not, I say, neither in this case ^^^^ "'.'"' 
lay falsehood and corruption to their charge, because they pretend to approved 
translate the common Greek text of the New Testament, that is, one th'oighThis 
certain copy. But here at the least let them shew their fidelity, and thetrlncre- 
that they be true and exact translators. For here only shall they be tlaUtyr"^' 
examined and called to account. 

[^ August. De Civit. Dei. Lib. xviii. c. 43. Opera, Vol. vii. p. 843.] 



FuLKE, Fulke. In translation we folloAv the common, usual, and 

printed copies, as you do in your translation ; and yet you 
know there be as many, yea, ten times as many diverse read- 
ings m the Latin as are in the Greek : witness hereof the 
bible printed at Antwerp by Christopher Plantine, 1567, of 
Hentenius' castigation ; where the margins almost of every 
leaf be full of diverse readings, obehsks, asterisks, stigmates, 
signifying the variety that is in many copies, by adding, de- 
tractmg, changmg. 

Bib???e opt. The same is confessed by Arias Montanus. 

pr et'. sc.'hb. Liudauus likewise acknowledgeth as much. 

Of that which you say, we reject that which best agreeth 
with the vulgar Latin in places of controversy, you bring 
none example. But that among your diverse readings you 
reject that which agreeth best with the Hebrew and with 
the Greek in places of controversy, I will give you an ex- 
ample. Gen. iii. 15., where the Hebrew truth teacheth, that 
the seed of the woman shall break the serpent's head, and 
the Greek translateth the pronoun in the masculine gender, 
(he) meaning Christ, and some ancient copies of your vulgar 
Latin have ipse; you nevertheless follow that blasphemous 
corruption, that in these latter times hath been received in 
your vulgar Latin bibles, and read still in your text ipsa, she; 
which though you would wrest blasphemously to the virgin 
Mary, which is proper to Christ, cannot by the circumstance 
of the place be aptly referred to any but to Eve. 

Martin, Martin. And if they follow sincerely their Greek and Hebrew text, 

which they profess to foUow, and which they esteem the only authen- 
ttieni for^for- ^^^^ *^^*' ^^ f^^ ^^ accuse them not of heretical corruption. But if 
fai'se"trans''- ^* ^^^^ ^^ evidently proved, that they shrink from the same also, and 
ownVebrew t^^^^s^^t'^ another thing, and that wilfully and of full intention to 
and Greek countenance their false religion and wicked opinions, making the 
scriptures to speak as they list; then we trust the indifferent reader, 
for his own soul's sake, will easily see and conclude, that they have no 
fear of God, no reverence of the scriptures, no conscience to deceive 
their readers : he will perceive that the scriptures make against them, 
which they so pervert and corrupt for their purpose; that neither 
the Hebrew nor Greek text is for them, which they dare not trans- 
late truly and sincerely; that their cause is naught, wliich needeth 
such foul shifts; that they must needs know all this, and therefore 
do wilfully against their conscience, and consequently are obstinate 



Fulke. We crave no pardon, if it can be proved that Fulke, 
we have wilfully translated another thing than is contained 
in the Hebrew and Greek, to maintain any false rehgion or 
wicked opinion. Provided always, that if any translator, or 
all the translators, have ignorantly erred in misunderstanding 
any word or phrase of the Hebrew or Greek text, that if it 
may be plainly shewed unto them, they acknowledging the 
fault, they may not be charged with heretical corruption, from 
which it is certain their intention was most free. 

Martin. And the more to understand tlieir misery and wretched- Martin, 
ness, before we enter to examine their translations, mark and gather ^^' 
of all that which I have said in this preface, their manifold flights and 
jumps from one shift to another, and how catholic writers have pursued 
and chased them, and followed them, and driven them even to this ' 
extreme refuge and seely covert of false translation, where also they 
must of necessity yield, or devise some new evasion, which we can- 
not yet imagine. 

Fulke. Hitherto I hope the indifferent reader will con- Fulkk, 
fess, that you have driven us to no jumps nor shifts, but ^ 
only uttered your own malicious and unlearned quarrels. And 
how popish writers have pursued and chased us to extreme 
refuge, and seely covert of false translation, let it appear by 
the learned answers^ of Mr Jewell, Mr Home, Mr Nowell, 
Mr Bridges, Mr Calfhill, and others ; that I speak notliing of 

P For instance, Jewel's Defence of the Apology of the Church of 
England, contairung an answer to a certaia book lately set forth by 
Mr Harding. Lond. 1564. Jewel's Answer to Mr Harding's book, 
entitled a detection of certain errors. Lond. 1565. Jewel's Reply to 
Mr Harding's Answer. Lond. 1566. — This was translated into Latin 
by Whitaker. 

Letters between Jewel and Dr Henry Cole. 

Rastel's Return of Untruths, answered by Jewel. — This work has 
hitherto escaped the notice of Jewel's biographers. 

Feckenham's Declaration of scruples and stays of conscience toucliing 
the oath of supremacy, answered by Home, bishop of Winchester, 

Nowell's Reproof of a book entitled a proof of certain articles in 
religion, denied by Master Jewel, set forth by Thos. Dorman. NoweU's 
Reproof of Mr Dorman's Proof continued. 

Nowell's Confutation of Dorman's last book, entitled a Defence 

Bridges' Reply to the Horn-blast of Thos. Stapleton. 

CaKhill's Answer to John Martiall's Treatise of the Cross.] 




The divers 
shifts and 
flights that 
the protest- 
ants are 
driv n unto 
by the 
cathohes, as 
it were the 
jumps and 
turnings of 
an hare be- 
fore the 


mine own simple labom-s, who being one of the meanest, 
having confuted ten or twelve of your popish treatises, can 
receive no reply of any man, but only of poor Bristow, to 
whom in this respect I confess myself more beholding than 
to all the papists beside, saving that I have rejoined to liim 
almost two years ago, and yet I hear not of his answer. 

Martin. First, we are wont to make this offer (as we think) most 
reasonable and indifferent : that forasmuch as the scriptures are diversely- 
expounded of us and of them, they neither be tied to our interpretation, 
nor we to theirs; but to put it to the arbitrement and judgment of the 
ancient fathers, of general councils, of universal custom of times and 
places in the catholic church. No, say they, we will be our own 
judges and interpreters, or follow Luther, if we be Lutherans; Calvin, 
if we be Calvinists; and so forth. 

FulJce. For expounding of the scriptures, we will not 
refuse the arbitrement and judgment of the ancient fathers, 
of general councils, of universal custom of times and places 
in the catholic church ; for this you say is your offer, which 
was never refused of us, though you most falsely affirm, 
that we say we will be our own judges and interpreters, or 
follow Luther, if we be Lutherans ; Calvin, if we be Cal- 
vinists, &c. Wlio ever said so, you shameless slanderer ? 
What have you differing from us, wherein you have the 
judgment of the ancient fathers, of general councils, of 
universal custom of times and places in the catholic church ? 
Unless perhaps you mean some wretched sopliistry, by dis- 
joining these that you here seem to join together. And if 
you so do, we must first ask you, whether you yom^selves 
in all expositions of the scriptm^es will stand to the ar- 
bitrement of every ancient father, or of every general council, 
or of any custom in any time or place? I know, and you 
cannot deny it, that you will stand to nothing, that is not 
allowed by your pope, though fathers, councils, custom, time 
or place, or all the world be against it, yea, the manifest 
scripture, which is so plain that it needeth no exposition : as 
the commandment against images in religion, Theodoret, 
Gelasius, Vigilius, Chrysostora against transubstantiation, 
Epiphanius against images, the sixth council of Constan- 
tinople for condemnirig the pope of heresy, the councils of 
Constance and Basil for deposing the popes, and decreeing 
that the council is above the pope, and many other like 


matters beside, in which you go clearly from the consent of 
all antiquity for 600 years, as the bishop of Sarum hath 
made plain demonstration, and you are not able to reply. 

Martin. This being of itself a shameless shift, unless it be better Martin, 
coloured, the next is to say, that the scriptures are easy and plain, and 
sufficient of themselves to determine every matter, and therefore they 
wUl be tried by the scriptures only. We ai-e content, because they will 
needs have it so, and we allege unto them the books of Tobit, Eccle- 
siasticus, Machabees. No, say they ; we admit none of these for scrip- 
ture. ^VTiy so ? Are they not approved canonical by the same authority 
of the church, of ancient councils and fathers, that the other books are ? 
No matter, say they, Luther admitteth them not ; Calvm doth not 
allow them. 

Fulhe. That the scriptures are plain and easy to be Fulke, 
understood, of them that use the ordinary means to come to 
it, for all doctrine necessary to be known, and sufficient to 
determine every matter, the Holy Ghost himself doth testify, 
2 Tim. iii. and some of the ancient fathers also do bear wit- 
ness, as Augustine, de Doct. Christ, lib. 2, Clirysostom, in Gen. 
hom. 13, de verb. Esai. Vidi dominum, Sj-c. horn. 2. 

If therefore you had the spirit of the ancient fathers, 
you would be content to be tried by the scriptures, for re- 
verence you owed to God's most holy and perfect writings ; 
and not because we will have it so, who are content in 
many controversies to be tried by the judgment of the 
ancient fathers, or general councils, or miiversal custom of 
times and places ; and m all controversies, wherein all the 
ancient fathers, all councils, and universal custom of all 
times and places do consent, if any think such things can be 
brought against us, as it is falsely and sophistically bragged. 
But whereas we refuse the books of Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, 
Machabees, for canonical scripture, it is not (as you say 
ridiculously) because Luther and Calvin admitted them not, 
but because they are contrary to the canonical scriptures, 
and were never received of the church of Israel for canonical, 
nor of the cathohc church of Christ for more than 400 years 
after Christ, as I have shewed before. 

Martin. Well, let us go forward in their own dance. You allow at Martin, 
the least the Jews' canonical books of the Old Testament, that is, all 
that are extant in the Hebrew bible, and all of the New Testament 
without exception. Yea, that we do. In these books then, will you be 



tried by the vulgar ancient Latin bible, only used in all the west church 
above a thousand years ? No. Will you be tried by the Greek bible 
of the Septuagint interpreters, so renowned and authorised in our 
Saviour's own speeches, in the evangelists' and apostles' writings, in the 
whole Greek church evermore? No. How then will you be tried? 
They answer, only by the Hebrew bible that now is, and as now it is 
pointed with vowels. Will you so ? and do you think that only 
the true authentical Hebrew, which the Holy Ghost did first put into 
the pens of those sacred writers? We do think it (say they), and 
esteem it the only authentical and true scripture of the Old Testament. 

FuLKE, Fulke. Where so many of youi' own popish writers do 

accuse your vulgar Latin text of innumerable corruptions, what 
reason is there, that we should follow that translation only ; 
especially seeing God hath given us knowledge of the tongues, 
that we may resort to the fountains themselves, as St Au- 
gustine exhorteth ? As for the Greek translation of the Sep- 
tuagint, from which yom' own vulgar Latin varieth, (although 
we reverence it for the antiquity, and use it for interpreta- 
tion of some obscure places in the Hebrew,) why should you 
require us to be tried thereby, which will not be tried by 
it yourselves ? If I were as captious as you are with John 
Keltridge about the Greek bible of the Septuagint interpre- 
ters, I might make sport with you, as you do with him : but 
I acknowledge your synecdoche^ that you mean the Old Tes- 
tament only, whereas the word bible is commonly taken for 
both. But to the purpose : we acknowledge the text of the 
Old Testament in Hebrew and Chaldee, (for in the Chaldee 
tongue were some parts of it written,) as it is now printed 
with vowels, to be the only fountain, out of which we must 
draw the pure truth of the scriptures for the Old Testament, 
adjoining herewith the testimony of the Mazzoreth, where 
any diversity of points, letters, or words, is noted to have 
been in sundry ancient copies, to discern that which is proper 
to the whole context, from that which by error of the writers 
or printers hath been brought into any copy, old or new. 

Martin, Martin. We ask them again. What say you then to that place of 

^' the psalm, where in the Hebrew it is thus, " As a Hon my hands and 

nKD my feet," for that which in truth should be thus, "They digged or 

pierced my hands and i?iy feet ;" being an evident prophecy of Christ's 
nailing to the cross ? There indeed (say they) we follow not the He- 
brew, but the Greek text. Sometimes then you follow the Greek, and 
not the Hebrew only. And what if the same Greek text make for the 


catholics, as in these places for example, " I have inclined my heart 
to keep thy justifications for reward," and " Redeem thy sins with 
alms ;•' might we not obtain here the like favour at your hands for the 
Greek text, specially when the Hebrew doth not disagree? No, say 
they, nor in no other place where the Greek is never so plain, if the 
Hebrew word at the least may be any otherwise interpreted, and drawn 
to another signification. 

Fulke. We say to you first, that you have falsely pointed Fulke, 
the Hebrew word in the margin ; for aU the printed books 
that ever I have seen, as Bomberg, both in fol/io and 
quarto, Stephanus, Basil, Plantine, Arias Montanus, Com- 
plutensis, all place camels under ca'ph, where you make patacli. 
But perhaps yom' Hebrew is most out of Munster's dictionary, 
where it is pointed as you make it. But for answer to your " 
question, we say, that there is a double testimony of the 
Mazzorites to prove, that in the most ancient and best 
corrected copies the Hebrew was cam, "they have digged or 
pierced": this is testified not only by our translators, but 
also by Johannes Isaac, your own rabbin, against Lindanus, 
a prelate of yours. And tliis the authors of the Complutensian 
edition do acknowledge ; for thus they have pointed it, caru, ii><3 
where is nothing but the redundance of alepli (which is un- 
derstood in every camets) differing from the usual reading 
and declining of the verb cardh, that signifieth " to pierce or n-ia 
dig." Again, where it is read otherwise, if it be rightly 
pointed, as it is in Arias Montanus, caari, it cannot sig- f^^^a 
nify sxcut leo, " as a lion," as both the Mazzorites do teach, "'^ 
and Johannes Isaac, a grammarian, out of them by the points 
and the note over iod doth plainly demonstrate. For what 
should shurech sound in iodf or if you would contend it 
should be daghes, to what purpose should it be in iod, if 
the word should signify "as a lion"? Therefore, how- 
soever this variety of copies came, either by negligence of 
some writers, or by corruption of the Jews, we have suf- 
ficient warrant for the ancient and true reading, which the 
Greek translator did follow, which also was in St Jerome's 
copy ; otherwise he would not have translated out of the 
Hebrew fixerunt, " they have pierced." Therefore Eabbi Jo- 
seph, which made the Chaldee paraphrase upon the Psalter, 
laboured to express both the copies, as well that which hath 
plainly "they have pierced," as that which hath it corruptly, 




as though it spake of a Hon, and yet cannot rightly be so 
translated, because the points are imperfect even for that 
reading. Therefore he hath said, nikethin Jieich cheariah, 
" they have indented and pierced like a hon my hands and 
my feet," as it is in the Venice print of Daniel Bomberg, al- 
though Arias Montanus, in his bible, have no more but 
nachethin, which he translateth, " biting my hands and my 
feet." I have played the fool to utter these matters in the 
mother tongue to ignorant men, that can make no trial of 
them; but you have not only given me example, but also 
enforced me with yom* insoluble question (as you thought), 
by one word somewhat out of fi'ame, to overthrow the whole 
Hebrew text. But you are to be pardoned, for that you 
follow yom* Mr Lindanus herein, who hath noticing else in 
effect to quarrel against the Hebrew text, but this ; and 
therefore he repeateth it in many places, to make greater 
shew of it, as you do. In other places, where the Hebrew 
word hath divers significations, who shall forbid us to choose 
that which is most agreeable to the circumstance of the 
text, and to the analogy or rule of faith? 




Pra?fat. in 

Martin. We reply again and say unto them, Wliy ? Is not the 
credit of those Septuagint interpreters, who themselves were Jews, 
and best learned in their own tongue, and (as St Augustine often, and 
other ancient fathers say) were inspired with the Holy Ghost in trans- 
lating the Hebrew bible into Greek, — is not their credit, I say, in 
determining and defining the signification of the Hebrew word, far 
greater than yours? No. Is not the authority of all the ancient 
fathers, both Greek and Latin, that followed them, equivalent in this 
case to your judgment? No, say they; but because we find some 
ambiguity in the Hebrew, we will take the advantage, and we will 
determine and limit it to our purpose. 

Fulhe. St Jerome abimdantly answereth this cavil, de- 
nying that supposed inspiration, and deriding the fable of 
their 70 cells', (wliich yet pleased Augustine greatly,) yea, 
calling in question, whether any more were translated by 
them, than the five books of Moses ; because Aris- 
taeus, a writer in Ptolemy's time, and after him Josephus, 
make mention of no more. The same cause therefore, that 
moved St Jerome to translate out of the Hebrew, moveth 
us : whose translation, if we had it sound and perfect, might 
[' See before, p. 52.] 


much further us for the same purpose : although for the 
signification of the Hebrew words we require no more credit, 
than that which all they that be learned in the Hebrew 
tongue, must be forced to yield unto us. And seemg your 
vidgar Latin departeth from the Septuagint interpretation, 
even in the books of Moses, which (if any be theirs) may 
most rightly be accounted theirs, because it is certain they 
translated them, although it be not certain whether they 
translated the rest : with what equity do you require us to 
credit them, wliich your own vulgar translation affirmeth to 
have translated amiss, as I have shewn before in the example 
of Cainan's generation? Another example you have in the 
4th of Genesis, Nonne si bene egeris recipies, 8ic. " If thou 
shalt do well, shalt thou not receive ? but if thou shalt do' 
evil, straightway thy sins shalt be present in the doors." 
The Greek text hath, Ovk civ 6p6m TrpoaeveyKr]^, &c. "Not 
if thou hast rightly offered, but thou hast not rightly di- 
vided ; hast thou sinned ? be still." Where yom* translation 
Cometh much nearer to the Hebrew, as might be shewed in 
very many examples. As for the ancient fathers' credit of 
the Greek church, and the Latin that followed them, if our 
judgment alone be not equivalent unto them, yet let these 
ancient fathers, Origen and Jerome, — ^that thought them not 
sufficient to be followed, and therefore gathered or framed 
other interpretations, — let their judgment, I say, joining with 
ours, discharge us of tliis fond and envious accusation. 

Martin. Again, we condescend to their wilfulness, and say: What iNrAnxTN, 
if the Hebrew be not ambiguous, but so plain and certain to signify one "*"• 
thing, that it cannot be plainer ? As, " Thou shalt not leave my soul Psal. xv. 
in hell;" which proveth for us, that Christ in soul descended into hell, s'^j^^^ ^,55 
Is not the one Hebrew word as proper for soul, as anima in Latin? • ' '•"•■ 
the other, as proper and usual for hell, as infernus in Latin ? Here 
then at the least will you yield ? No, say they, not here neither ; for 
Beza telleth us, that the word which commonly and usually signifieth 
" soul," yet for a purpose, if a man will strain, it may signify not only 
" body," but also " carcase," and so he translateth it. But Beza (say 
we), being admonished by his friends, corrected it in his later edition. 
Yea, say they, he was content to change his translation, but not his 
opinion concerning the Hebrew word, as himself protesteth. 

Fulhe. You have chosen a text for example, wherein Fulke, 
is least colour (except it be with the unlearned) of an bun- 



dred. For whereas you ask, whether nephesh be not as 
proper for soul as anima in Latin, and sheol for hell as 
infernus in Latin ; I utterly deny both the one and the other. 
For nephesh is properly the life, and sheol the grave or pit, 
though it may sometimes be taken for hell, which is a con- 
sequent of the death of the ungodly, as nepliesh is taken 
for person, or one's self, or (as it is sometimes) for a dead 
carcase. Yea, there be that hold, that it is never taken 
for the reasonable immortal soul of a man, as anima is, 
specially of ecclesiastical writers. That Beza translated the 
Greek of the New Testament after the sifrnification of the 
Hebrew words, although it was true in sense, yet in mine 
opinion it was not proper in words ; and therefore he liim- 
self hath corrected it in his latter editions, as you confess : 
he hath not changed his opinion concerning the Hebrew : 
the reason is, because it is grounded upon manifest texts of 
scripture, which he citeth, Levit. xix. 27, and xxi. 1, and 
11. Num. v. 2, and ix. 10. In the first place your own 
vulgar Latin translation for lanephesh turneth mortuo : you 
shall not cut your flesh for one that is dead. In the second 
place your vulgar Latin hath, Ne non contaminetur sacerdos 
in mortihus ; and, Adomnem mortuum non ingredietur oninino : 
Let not the priest be defiled with the deaths of liis coun- 
trymen ; and, The high priest shaU not enter in to any dead 
jwf:b-2 byi body at all : where the Hebrew is knephesh, and nt^23~b5 b^ 
K3»* itb m ^^'' ^^ ^'^' ^^ ^^^^ third place your vulgar Latin readeth 
■^ • ■■ pollut'usque est super mortuo, they shall cast out him that is 
vvT polluted by touching a dead carcase ; where the Hebrew is 
lanephesh. In the first place your vulgar Latin hath indeed 
anima, but in the same sense, that it had before mortuo : for 
the text is of liim that is unclean by touching any dead 
body, which in Hebrew is nephesh. How say you now, is the 
Hebrew word as proper for soul as anima in Latin ? — except 
you will say, the Latin word anima doth properly signify 
a dead body. Hath not Beza good reason to retain his opinion 
concerning the Hebrew word, when he hath the authority of 
your own vulgar translation ? You that note such jumps 
and shifts in us, whither will you leap to save your honesty? 
Will you say, the Hebrew text is corrupted since your trans- 
lation was drawn out of it ? The Seventy interpreters 
then will cry out against you : for they with one mouth, 


in all these places, for the Hebrew word nepliesTi render the 
usual signification y^rv^v^ adding in the xxi. of Lev. 11, 
T€T€XevTTjKv7a, which either you must translate a dead body, 
or you shall call it absurdly a dead soul. Would any man 
thmk to have found in you either such gross ignorance, or 
shameful neghgence, or intolerable malice against the truth, 
that, Beza sending you to the places, either you would not 
or you could not examine them ; or if you did examine 
them, that you would notwithstanding thus mahciously, 
against your own knowledge and conscience, rail against 
him ? You make us to say, if a man will strain the word, 
it may signify not only body, but also carcase. What say 
you ? did Moses strain the word to that signification ? You 
said before, that we were at the jumps and turnings of an 
hare before the hounds; such mighty hunters you are, and 
we such fearful hares before you. I am not skilful in the 
terms of hunting, but in plain English I will speak it, that if 
all the traitorous wolves and foxes that be in the kennel at 
Rhemes, would do their best to save your credit in this 
section, nay, in this whole preface, they shall never be able 
to maintain their own, with any indifferent reader. 

Martin. Well then, doth it like you to read thus, according to Martin, 
Beza's translation, "Thou shalt not leave my carcase in the grave ?"'^'^- 
No; we are content to alter the word carcase, (which is not a seemly 
word for our Saviour's body,) and yet we are loth to say soul; but if 
we might, we would say rather "life," "person," as appeareth in the 
margin of our bibles: but as for the Hebrew word that signifieth 
hell, though the Greek and Latin bible throughout, the Greek and 
Latin fathers in all their writings, as occasion serveth, do so read it 
and understand it, yet wiU we never so translate it; but for "hell" 
we will say "grave," in all such places of scripture as might infer 
limbus patrum, if we should translate " hell." These are their shifts, 
and turnings, and windings, in the Old Testament. 

Fulke. I have shewed you before, that in the New Fulke, 
Testament we like better to translate according to the^''* 
proper and usual signification of the Greek word. But the 
Hebrew word in the Old Testament may be translated, accord- 
ing to the circumstance of the place, life, person, self, yea, 
or dead body, and in some place perhaps carcase. You 
follow us very near, to seek advantage of the English word 
carcase, which commonly is taken in contempt, and therefore 



we would not use it, speaking of the body of our Saviour 
Christ, when it was dead. But you hunt yourself out of 
breath, when you would bring the same contempt to the 

Cadaver. Latin word cadaver, which Beza used. For cadaver sig- 
nifieth generally a dead body of man or beast, and by your 
vulgar Latin translator is used for the dead bodies of sacri- 
fices, of saints and holy men, as indifferently as for carrion 

TO TTTMfia. of beasts, or carcases of evil men : namely, in Job xxxix, 33, 
"Wheresoever the dead body is, thither wUl the eagle resort;" 
which similitude our Saviour Christ applieth to himself, Matt. 
xxiv. 28, " Wheresoever the dead body is, thither will the 
eagles be gathered ;" where he compareth himself to the dead 
body, and the faithful to the eagles. 

Now concerning the other Hebrew word, which you 
say signifieth hell, because the Greek and vulgar Latin in- 
terpreter do so translate it : when just occasion shall be 
given afterward, cap. vii., I will shew that it properly signi- 
fieth a grave, pit, or place for dead bodies; and that in this 
place of the xvi. psalm it must needs so signify, not only 
the latter part of the verse, expressing in other words that 
which was said in the former, but also the apostle's proving 
out of it the resurrection of Christ, do sufficiently declare. 
If you have no place therefore in the scriptm'es, to prove 
your limhus patrum, but where the Holy Ghost speaketh 
of the death and burial of the fathers, no marvel though 
you must strain the Hebrew word, which properly signifieth 
grave, and the Greek word, which properly signifieth a dark 
place, and especially the Latin, which signifieth generally a 
low place : none of all the three words signifying hell, as we 
commonly understand the word hell, properly and only, but 
by a figure, where mention is made of the death of the 
ungodly, whose reward is in hell. These be the poor shifts, 
turnings and windings, that you have to wreath in those 
fables of limhus patrum and purgatory, which the church 
of God from the beginning of the world unto the coming 
of Christ never heard of, nor many hundred years after 
Christ, until the Montanists, or such like heathenish heretics, 
brought in those fantasies. 

Martin, Martin. In the New Testament, we ask them, will you be tried 

by the ancient Latin translation, which is the text of the fathers and 
the whole church ? No ; but we appeal to the Greek. AV^hat Greek ? 


say we ; for there be sundry copies, and the best of them (as Beza 
confesseth) agree with the said ancient Latin. For example, in St Peter's 
words, " Labour that by good works you may make sure your vocation 2 Pet. i. 
and election," doth this Greek copy please you ? No, say they ; we 
appeal to that Greek copy which hath not these words, "by good 
works ;" for otherwise we should grant the merit and efficacy of good 
works toward salvation. And generally, to tell you at once, by what 
Greek we will be tried, we like best the vulgar Greek text of the New 
Testament, which is most common and in every man's hands. 

Fulke. "We need not appeal to the Greek, for any Fulke, 
thing you bring out of the vulgar Latin against us. As ^^' 
for that text, 2 Pet. i. "Laboui' that by good works," &c., I ' 
have answered before in the 36th section. We hke well the 
Latin, or that Greek copy wliich hath those words, "by good 
works;" for we must needs understand them where they are 
not expressed : and therefore you do impudently believe us 
to say they do not please us. Calvin upon that text saith: 
NonnuUi codices hahent bonis operibus; sed hoc de sensw nihil 
mutat, quia subaudiendum est etiam si non exprimatur. " Some 
books have, 'by good works'; but this changeth notliing of the 
sense, for that must be miderstood although it be not ex- 
pressed." The same tiling in effect saith Beza: "that our elec- 
tion and vocation must be confirmed by the effects of faith, 
that is, by the fruits of justice, &c. ; therefore in some copies 
we find it added, 'by good works.' " So far off is it, that Beza 
misliketh those words, that he citeth them to prove the per- 
petual connection of election, vocation, justification, and sancti- 
fication. This is therefore as wicked a slander of us, as it is 
an untrue afiirmation of the vidgar Latin, that it is the text 
of the fathers and the whole church ; whereby you shew 
yourself to be a Donatist, to acknowledge no church, but 
where the Latin text is occupied : so that m Greece, Syria, 
Armenia, Ethiopia, and other parts of the world, where the 
Latin text is not known or understood, there Christ hath 
no church by yom' unadvised assertion. That we like best 
the most common Greek text, I am sure that we do it 
by as good reason, if not by better, than you in so great 
diversities of the Latin text, who like best of that which 
is most common and in every man's hands. 

Martin. Well, say we, if you will needs have it so, take your iAFaktiv, 
pleasure in choosing your text. And if you will stand to it, grant '^^• 
us that Peter was chief among the apostles, because your own Greek 


Matt. X, text saith, " The first, Peter." No, saith Beza, we will grant you no 
such thing ; for these words were added to the Greek text by one that 
favoured Peter's primacy. Is it so? then you wiU not stand to this 
Greek text neither? Not in this place, saith Beza. 

FuLKE, Fulke. In granting Peter to be the first, we need not 

grant him to be the chief ; and if we grant him to be the chief, 
it followeth not that he is chief in authority. But if that were 
granted, it is not necessary that he was head of the church. 
And albeit that were also granted, the bishop of Rome could 
gain nothing by it. But what saith Beza, where the text saith, 
" the first Peter" ? If we must beUeve you, he saith, "No, we 
will grant you no such thing ; for these words were added to 
the Greek text by one that favoured Peter's primacy." I pray 
you, Martin, where hath Beza those words ? will you never 
leave this shameful forgery ? Beza, in the tenth of Matthew, 
doth only ask the question : Quid si hoc rocabulum, &c. " What 
if this word were added by some that would estabhsh the pri- 
macy of Peter ? for nothing followeth that may agree with it." 
This asketh Beza, but as an objection, which immediately after 
he answereth, and concludeth that it is no addition, but a 
natural word of the text found in all copies, confessed by 
Theophylact, an enemy of the pope's primacy, and defendeth 
it in the third of Mark (where it is not in the common Greek 
copies, nor in the vulgar Latin) against Erasmus, who, finding 
it in some Greek copies, thought it was mitruly added out 
of Matthew. But Beza saith, £J(fo vero non duhito quin hwc 
sit germana lectio: " But I doubt not but this is the true and 
right reading of the text ;" and therefore he translateth Pri- 
mum Simonem, " the first Simon," out of the few copies Eras- 
mus speaketh of. Therefore it is an abominable slander to 
charge him with following the common received text, where 
it seemeth to make against you, when he contendeth for the 
truth against the common text, yea, and against your own 
vulgar Latin, to give you that which you make so great 
account of, that Peter in the catalogue of the apostles was 
first. So greatly he feareth to acknowledge that Peter was 
called first ! and so true it is that you charge him to say, "No, 
we will grant you no such thing ; for these words were added 
to the Greek text by. one that favoured Peter's primacy !" I 
hope your favourers, seeing your forgery thus manifestly dis- 
covered, will give you less credit in other yom* shameless slan- 
ders : at the leastwise this in equity I trust all papists will 


grant, not to believe your report against any man's writing, 
except tliey read it themselves. Now that this word " the first" 
argueth no primacy or superiority, beside those places quoted 
by Beza, Acts xxvi, 20, Rom. i. 8, and iii. 2, you may read 
1 Par. xxiii. xxiv. where the posterity of Levi and Aaron are [• chron. 
rehearsed, as they were appointed by David in their orders xxiv." 7.]' 
or courses : Subuel primus, Bohobia jdrimus, sors prima Joiarib, 
&c. where lest you should think of any headship or princi- 
pality, because the Hebrew is sometime tt^J^"l, and the Greek 
ap-^oyv, you may see that Subuel is called primus of the sons 
of Gerson, when there is no more mention; and more expressly, 
Eohobia is called primus of the sons of Eleazer, of whom it is 
said, that he had no more sons ; and that Wi^l signifieth here 
the first in order, it appeareth by those generations, where the 
second, third, or fom^th, is named, as in the sons of Hebron 
and of Oziel. Also in the sons of Semei, where Jehoth is 
counted the first, Riza the second, Jaus and Beria, because 
they increased not in sons, Avere accounted for one family. In 
all which there is no other primacy than in the first lot of pB,Knn 
Joiarib, where the Hebrew word is harishuon, and so follow 
the rest in order, unto four and twenty com'ses. Therefore 
there is no cause why we should not stand to the Greek text 
in that place, neither did Beza ever deny to stand to it. 

Martin. Let us see another place. You must grant us (say we) Maktin, 

by tliis Greek text, that Chiist's very blood which was shed for us is 

really in the chalice, because St Luke saith so in the Greek text. No, 

saith Beza ; those Greek words came out of the margin into the text, 

and therefore I translate not according to them, but according to that 

which I think the truer Greek text, although I find it in no copies 

in the world: and this his doing is maintained and justified by our See chap. i. 

English Protestants in their writings of late. chap. xvii. 

num. 11. 

FulJce. Still Beza speaketh as you inspire into him, while Fulke, 
he speaketh through your throat or quill. The truth is, Beza ^^' 
saith, that either there is a manifest solcecophanes, that is, 
an appearance of incongruity ; or else those words " which is 
shed for you" seem to be added out of St Matthew ; or 
else it is an error of the writer's, placing that in the nomi- 
native case which should be in the dative : for in the 
dative case did Basil read them in his Morals', 21. definition. 

P Tovro TO TTOTijpiov 7] KaivT) 8iadr]Krj eo'riz' eV rS al^ari fiov, ra 
vnep vficov iKxvvop.evM. Hie calix novum testamentum est in sanguine 



Nevertheless, all our old books, saith Beza, had it so 
written, as it is commonly printed, in the nominative case. 
Here are three several distinctions, yet can you find none 
but one proposition that you set down, as though it were 
purely and absolutely afiirmed by Beza. Likewise, where you 
speak of no copies in the world, you say more than Beza, 
who speaketh but of such copies as he had; who, if he were 
of no better conscience than you would have him seem to 
be, might feign some copy in his own hands to salve the 
matter. But the truth is, that since he wrote this, he found 
one more ancient copy, both in Greek and Latin, which now 
is at Cambridge, where this whole verse is wanting. But of 
this matter, which somewhat concerneth myself particularly, I 
shall have better occasion to write in the places by you quoted, 
cap. I. 37, and cap. xvii. 11, where I will so justify that wliich 
I have written before toucliing this place, as I trust all 
learned and indifferent readers shall see how vainly you in- 
sult against me, where you bewray grosser ignorance in Greek 
phrases than ever I would have suspected in you, bemg ac- 
counted the principal linguist of the seminary at Rhemes. 

]\Iartin, Martin, Well, yet, say we, there are places in the same Greek 

text, as plain for us as these now cited, where you cannot say, it came 

1 Thess. ii. out of the margin, or it was added falsely to the text. As, " Stand 
and hold fast the traditions," &c. : by this text we require that you 
grant us traditions delivered by word of mouth, as well as the written 
word, that is, the scriptures. No, say they, we know the Greek word 
signifieth tradition, as plain as possibly ; but here and in the like places 
we rather translate it " ordinances," " instructions," and what else soever. 
Nay, sirs, say we, you cannot so answer the matter, for in other places 
you translate it duly and truly " tradition ;" and why more in one 
place than in another? They are ashamed to tell why; but they must 
tell, and shame both themselves and the devil, if ever they think it 
good to answer this treatise : as also, why they changed " congregation," 
which was always in their first translation, into " church" in their 
later translations, and did not change likewise " ordinances" into " tra- 
ditions," "elders" into "priests." 



Fulke. That the Thessalonians had some part of chris- 
tian doctrine delivered by word of mouth, that is, by the 
apostle's preaching, at such time as he did write unto them. 

meo, qui pro vobis funditur. Basilii Moralia. Regula xxi. c. 3, Opera, 
V. iii. p. 254. Edit. Gamier, Parisiis, 1722.] 


and some part by his epistles, the text enforceth us to grant, 
and we never purposed to deny: but that the church at this 
day, or ever since the New Testament was written, had any 
tradition by word of mouth of any matter necessary to sal- 
vation, wliich was not contained in the Old or New Testa- 
ment, we will never grant, neither shall you ever be able 
out of this text or any text in the bible to prove. Make 
your syllogisms when you dare, and you shall be answered. 

But "we know," you say, "that the Greek word sig- 
nifieth tradition as plain as possibly; but here, and in hke 
places, we rather translate it ordinances, instructions, and what 
else soever." We know that it signifieth tradition, constitu- 
tion, instruction, precept ; also mancipation, treatise, treason : 
for all these the Greek dictionaries do teach that it signi- 
fieth. Therefore if in anyplace we have translated it "ordi- 
nances", or " instructions", or " institutions", we have not 
gone from the true signification of the word; neither can you 
ever prove that the word signifieth such a doctrine only as 
is taught by word of mouth, and is not or may not be put 
in writing. But in other places you can tell us, that we 
translate it duly and truly "tracUtion"; and you will know, why 
more in one place than in another, affirming that we are 
shamed to tell why. For my part, I was never of counsel 
with any that translated the scriptures into Enghsh ; and 
therefore it is possible I cannot sufficiently express what rea- 
son moved the translators so to vary in the exposition of 
one and the same word. Yet can I yield sufficient reason 
that might lead them so to do, which I think they followed. 
The papists do commonly so abuse the name of tradition, 
which signifieth properly a delivery, or a thing dehvered, for 
such a matter as is delivered only by word of mouth, and 
so received from hand to hand, that it is never put in writing, 
but hath his credit without the holy scriptures of God, as 
the Jews had their cabala, and the scribes and Pharisees had 
their traditions, beside the law of God ; and the Valentinian irenaeus, 
heretics accused the scriptures, as insufficient of authority 2. ' ' 
and ambiguously written, and that the truth could not be 
found in them by those that knew not the tradition, which 
was not delivered by writing, but by word of mouth, just 
as the papists do. This abusing of the word "tradition" might 
be a sufficient cause for the translators to render the Greek 


word, where it is taken for such doctrine as is beside the 
commandment of God, by the name of tradition, as the word 
is commonly taken. But where the Greek word is taken in 
the good part, for that doctrine which is agreeable with the 
holy scriptures, they might with good reason avoid it, as 
you yourself do not always translate tradere, to betray, but 
sometimes to dehver. So did the translators give these words, 
"ordinances", "instructions", "institutions", or doctrine deli- 
vered ; which do generally signify the same that tradition, but 
have not the prejuchce of that partial signification in which the 
papists use it, who, wheresoever they find tradition, straightway 
imagine they have found a sufficient argument against the per- 
fection and sufficiency of the holy scripture, and to bring in 
all riff'-raff and trish-trash of man's doctrine, not only beside, 
but also contrary to the manifest word of God, contained 
in his most holy and perfect scriptures. To the shame of 
the devU therefore, and of all popish maintainors of traditions 
uncommanded by God, this reason may be yielded. 

Now to answer you, why ecclesia was first translated "con- 
gregation", and afterward "church" ; the reason that moved 
the first translators, I tliink, was tliis : the word church of the 
common people at that time was used ambiguously, both for 
the assembly of the faitliful, and for the place in which they 
assembled ; for the avoiding of which ambiguity they trans- 
lated ecclesia the congregation ; and yet in their creed, and 
in the notes of theu^ bibles, in preacliing and writing, they 
used the word church for the same : the later translators, 
seeing the people better instructed and able to discern, when 
they read in the scriptures, the people from the place of 
their meeting, used the Avord church in their translations, as 
they did in their preaching. These are weighty matters 
that we must give account of them. Why we change not 
ordinances into traditions, and elders into priests, we will 
answer when Ave come to the proper places of them. In the 
mean season we thinlc, there is as good cause for us in trans- 
lating, sometime to avoid the terms of traditions and priest, 
as for you to avoid the names of elders, calling them ancients, 
and the wise men sages, as though you had rather speak 
French than English,, as we do : \\ke as you translate confide, 
" have a good heart," after the French phrase, rather than 
you would say as we do, "be of good comfort." 


Martin. The cause is, that the name of church was at the first Martin, 
odious untd them, because of the catholic church which stood against °'^' 
them ; but afterward this name grew into more favour with them, be- 
cause of their English church, so at length called and termed. But 
their hatred of priests and traditions continueth stiU, as it first began ; 
and therefore their translation also remaineth as before, suppressing the 
names both of the one and of the other. But of all these their deal- 
ings they shall be told in their several chapters and places. 

Fidke. I pray you, who first translated the creed into Fulke, 
the English tongue, and taught it to the people, and for ^2. 
that cause were accounted heretics of the antichristian Ro- 
mish rabble '? If the name of church were odious unto them, 
why did they not suppress that name in the creed which 
they taught to young and old, and instead of cathoUc church 
call it the universal congregation or assembly ? Well, Davus, 
these things be not aptly divided according to then* times. 
The first translation of the bible, that was printed in the 
English tongue, in very many places of the notes useth the 
name church, and most notoriously in the Song of Salomon, 
where before every other verse almost it telleth which is the 
voice of the church to Christ her spouse ; which no reason- 
able man would tliink the translators would have done, if 
the name of the church had been odious unto them, or that 
they thought the cathoHc church stood against them. Look 
Thomas Matthews' bible, in the Canticles of Salomon, and 
upon the xvi. of St Matthew's Gospel, the 18th verse, the 
words of Christ to Peter. Therefore your senseless imagina- 
tions shew no hatred of the cathoHc church in our translators, 
but cankered mahce and impudent folly in yourselves. 

Martin. To conclude, as I began, concerning their sliifts and jumps, Martin 
and windings, and turnings eveiy way from one thing to another, till ^3. 
they are driven to the extreme refuge of palpable corruptions and false 
translations : consider with me in this one case only of traditions, as may 
be likewise considered in all other controversies, that the ancient fathers, 
councils, antiquity, universality, and custom of the whole church allow 
traditions ; the canonical scriptures have them, the Latin text hath 
them, the Greek text hath them ; only their translations have them not. 
Likewise in the Old Testament, the approved Latin text hath such and 
such speeches, that make for us ; the I'enowned Greek text hath it, the 
Hebrew text hath it ; only their translations have it not. 

These are the translations which we call heretical and wilful, and 
which shall be examined and discussed in this book. 


FuLKE, Fulke. By what windings and turnings, I pray you, are 

we driven to that miserable refuge of palpable corruptions 
and false translations ? for hitherto you have shewed none, but 
such as shew your own ignorance or malice. Neither, I hope, 
you shall be able to shew any, though you swear never so 
sore at your work. Yes, I ween, this one case only of tradi- 
tions, (for so you seem to say,) if it be considered, will discover 
no less. It is marvel, if for your sake all the Greek diction- 
aries in the world must not be corrected, and taught to say, 
that irapaSoaris can signify notliing but a tradition, that is, not 
written. But yet you roll in your accustomed rhetoric, say- 
ing, that "the ancient fathers, councils, antiquity, universahty, 
and custom of the whole church allow traditions :" and so do 
we, so many as be good and agreeable to the holy scrip- 
tures ; but that there be traditions of matter necessary to 
salvation not contained in the holy scriptures, when you bring 
your fathers, councils, &c. you shall receive an answer to 
them. That the canonical scripture alloweth any traditions 
contrary to the doctrine thereof, or to supply any want or 
imperfection thereof, as though all things required to make 
the man of God perfect, prepared to all good works, were 
not contained in the scriptures, you shall never be able to 
prove, although for spite against the perfection of the canoni- 
cal scripture you should brast asunder, as Judas did, which 
betrayed the author of the scripture. Finally, whatsoevei* 
you say out of the Old Testament without proof or shew of 
proof, it is as easily denied by us as it is affirmed by you. 
When you bring but only a shadow of reason, it shall soon 
be chased away with the light of truth. 






That the Protestants translate the holy Scripture falsely of pur- 
pose, in favour of their heresies, throughout all controversies 95 


Against apostolical traditions 164 


Against sacred images 179 


The ecclesiastical use of words turned into their original and 

profane significations 217 


Against the Church 225 


Against pi-iest and priesthood. Where much also is said of their 

profaning of ecclesiastical words 240 


Against purgatory, Limbus Patrum, and Christ's descending into 

hell 278 


Concerning justification, and God's justice in rewarding good works 332 


Against merits, meritorious works, and the reward for the same 343 


Against free will 375 


For imputative justice against true inherent justice 401 




For special faith, vain security, and only faith' 415 


Against penance and satisfaction 428 


Against the holy sacraments, namely baptism, and confession ... 450 


Against the sacrament of holy orders, and for the marriage of 

priests and votaries 460 


Against the sacrament of matrimony 492 


Against the blessed sacrament, and sacrifice, and altars 497 


Against the honour of saints, namely, of our blessed lady 526 


Against the distinction of Dulia and Latria 539 


Adding to the text 547 

Other heretical treacheries and corruptions worthy of observa- 
tion 557 


Other faults Judaical, profane, mere vanities, follies, and novelties 571 

A DISCOVERY ^'^-^^^ 










That the Protestants translate the holy Scriptures falsely 
of purpose, in favour of their heresies. 

Martin. Though this shall evidently appear throughout this whole Martin, 1. 
book in every place that shall be objected unto them; yet because it 
is an observation of greatest importance in this case, and which stiugeth 
them sore, and toucheth their credit exceedingly, insomuch that one 
of them setting a good face upon the matter saith confidently, that Confutation 
all the papists in the world are not able to shew one place of scrip- fo. 35, p. 2. ' 
ture mistranslated wilfully of purpose ; therefore I will give the reader 
certain brief observations and evident marks to know wilful corruptions, 
as it were an abridgement and sum of this treatise. 

Fulke. Although this trifling treatise was in hand two or Fulke, I . 
three years ago, as by the threatening of Bristow ^ and Howlet 

{} Richard Bristow, a most zealous advocate for the Roman Catholic 
cause, was bom at Worcester in the beginning of the 16th Centuiy. He 
left the University of Oxford in 1569, and becoming acquainted with 
Dr Allen, was made public lecturer on Divinity at Doway. He wrote, 
among other things, A brief treatise of divers plain and sure ways to 
find out the truth in this doubtful and dangerous time of heresy, contain- 
ing sundry motives unto the Catholic faith ; or, considerations to move a 
man to believe the Catholics, and not the heretics. Antwerp, 1574. These 
motives were answered by Fulke in his Retentive to stay good Christ- 
ians in true faith and religion, against the motives of Richard Bristow. 
London, 1580. 

Bristow also wrote A Reply to William Fulke, in Defence of Dr 
Allen's Scroul of Articles, and Book of Purgatry. Lovaine, 1580. To 


it may appear ; yet, that it might seem new, and a sudden 
piece of work compiled with small study, you thought good 
by carping at my confutation of Howlet^ last made, and of 
M. Whitaker's^ work, set forth later than it, as it were by 
setting on new ears upon your old pot, to make it seem to 
be a new vessel. And first of all, you would seem to have 
taken occasion of my confident speech in my confutation of 
Howlet's nine reasons^, in rehearsing whereof you use such 
fidelity as commonly papists used to bear towards God, the 
church, your prince, and your country. For what face so- 
ever I set upon the matter, with a whorish forehead and a 
brasen face you make report of my saying ; which, being 
testified by a thousand copies printed, as it were by so many 
witnesses, doth cry out upon your falsehood and injurious 
dealing. For my words, out of the place by you quoted 
Howiett*^ against Howlet, are these : "That some error may be in trans- 
withl!."' lation (although by you it cannot be shewed) I will not deny ; 
but that any shameless translations, or wilful corruptions, can 
be found of purpose to draw the scriptures to any heretical 

which Fulke rejoined the following year, in his book entitled A re- 
joinder to Bristow's Replie in defence of Allen's Scroll of Articles and 
Boohe of Purgatorie, S;c. 1581. p. 792. Wood's Athens, Vol. i. pp. 

^ The Howlet here referred to was Persons the Jesuit, who pub- 
lished under tliis name a treatise, entitled A brief Discourse, containing 
the reasons why Catholics refuse to go to Church. Doway, 1580. It was 
answered the same year, in A Check to Mr Howlet's Screechings to her 
Majesty, (Wood's Athenae, Vol. v. pp. 68, 69.;) and in a Caveat for 
Parson Howlet, 1581, (Hartshorne's Book Rarities of Cambridge, p. 442;) 
and also by Fulke, in Howlet's Nine Reasons; and seems to be the same 
book as the one just mentioned. Wood's Athenae, Vol. ii. p. 60, and 
Possevinus in Apparat. Sacr. Vol. ii., under Robert Persons.] 

[^ Wliitaker, a learned divine, and Master of St John's College, Cam- 
bridge: the able antagonist of Cardinal BeUarmine, Stapleton, Cam- 
pian, Saunders, Rainolds, &c. He died in 1595.] 

P " A briefe confutation of a Papist Discourse : lately set forth, and 
presumptuously dedicated to the Queen's most excellent Majestie: by 
John Howlet, or some other birde of the night, under tliat name, 
contayning certame Reasons, why Papistes refuse to come to Church, 
which reasons are here inserted and set downe at large, with their 
several answers. By D., Fulke, Maister of Pembroke Hall, in Cam- 
bridge. Scene and allowed. At London, printed for George Byshop, 
1681. qto. b. ]. 58 leaves."] 


opinion, all the papists in the world shall never be able 
to make demonstration." This was my saying, and I repeat 
it again with as great confidence as before ; yea, and with 
much greater too, forasmuch as all the papists in the semi- 
nary, having now beaten their heads together to find out 
" shameless translations and wilful corruptions of purpose to 
maintain heresies," can find nothing but old frivolous quarrels 
answered long before, or new trifling cavils, not worthy in- 
deed of any learned man's answer, but for satisfying of the 
simple and ignorant. How this my saying diifereth from 
your slanderous report, I trust every reasonable papist that 
will take pains to confer them together, will be enforced to 
acknowledge. For where I say " shameless translations and 
wilful corruptions," (as Howlet chargeth us), you report me to , 
say "mistranslated ;" although in plain words I did confess that 
there might be some errors even in the best and perfectest 
of our translations. For to translate out of one tongue into 
another is a matter of greater difficulty than it is commonly 
taken, I mean exactly to yield as much and no more than 
the original containeth, when the words and phrases are so 
different, that few are found which in all points signify the 
same tiling, neither more nor less, in divers tongues. Where- 
fore, notwithstanding any translation that can be made, the 
knowledge of the tongues is necessary in the church, for the 
perfect discussing of the sense and meaning of the holy scrip- 
tures. Now, if some of our translators, or they all, have not 
attained to the best and most proper expressing of the nature 
of all words and phrases of the Hebrew and Greek tongue^ in 
Enghsh, it is not the matter that I will stand to defend, nor 
the translators themselves, I am well assured, if they were all 
living : but that the scriptm-es are not impudently falsified 
or wilfully corrupted by them, to maintain any heretical 
opinion, as the adversary chargeth us, that is the thing 
that I wUl (by God's grace) stand to defend against all the 
papists in the world. And this end you have falsely and 
fraudulently omitted in reporting my saying, whereupon de- 
pendeth the chief, yea, the whole matter of my assertion. 
You play manifestly with us the lewd part of Procrustes, the 
thievish host, which would make his guests' stature equal 
with his bed's, either by stretchmg them out if they were too 
short, or by cutting off their legs if they were too long. So 



if our sayings be too short for your purpose, you strain them 
to be longer ; if they be too long, you cut off their shanlvs ; 
yea, that which is worse, the very head, as you play with me 
in this place. I myself, and so did many hundi'eds beside me, 
hear that reverend father, M. Doctor Coverdale, of holy and 
learned memory, in a sermon at Paul's cross, upon occasion of 
some slanderous reports that then were raised against his 
translation, declare his faithfid purpose in doing the same ; 
which after it was finished, and presented to king Henry VIII. 
of famous memory, and by him committed to divers bishops 
of that time to peruse, of wliich (as I remember) Stephen 
Gardiner was one ; after they had kept it long in their hands, 
and the king was divers times sued mito for the publication 
thereof, at the last being called for by the king liimself, they 
redelivered the book ; and being demanded by the king what 
was their judgment of the translation, they answered that there 
were many faults therein. "Well," said the king, "but are 
there any heresies maintained thereby ? " They answered, there 
were no heresies, that they could find, maintained thereby. 
"K there be no heresies," said the king, "then in God's name 
let it go abroad among our people." According to this judg- 
ment of the king and' the bishops, M. Coverdale defended his 
translation, confessing that he did now liimself espy some 
faults, which, if he might review it once over again, as he had 
done twice before, he doubted not but to amend ; but for any 
heresy, he was sure there was none maintained by his trans- 
lation. After the same manner, I doubt not (by God's help) 
so to defend aU our translations, for all your evident marks to 
know wilful corruptions, that not one shall be fomid of pur- 
pose to maintain any heretical opinion, and not many errors 
committed through neghgence, ignorance, or human frailty. 

Martin, 2. Martin. The first mark and most general is : If they translate else- 
Evident where not amiss, and in places of controversv between them and us most 

marks or ' '- *' 

signs to know falsely; it is an evident argument that they do it not of negligence, or 
ruptionsin ignorance, but of partiality to the matter in controversy. This is to be 
seen through the whole bible, where the faults of their translations are 
altogether, or specially, m those scriptures that concern the causes in 
question between us. For other small faults, or rather oversights, we 
will no further note unto them, than to the end that they may the more 
easily pardon us the like, if they find them. 

FuLKE, 2. Fulke. This murk is too general to know anytliing 


thereby : when you do exemplify it in special, you shall 
easily be answered ; in the meantime, it is sufficient to deny 
generally, that wherewith you so generally charge us, that 
we have in places of controversy translated anything falsely. 
If one word be otherwise translated in any place of contro- 
versy, than it is in other places out of controversy, there may 
be rendered sufficient reason of that variety, without that it 
must needs come of partiality to the matter in controversy, 
but rather of love of the truth, which in all matters of ques- 
tion between us is confirmed by plain text of scriptm'es, or 
necessary collection out of the same ; so that if the translation 
in those places were the same that yours is, of the New Tes- 
tament, it should neither hinder our truth, nor fortify your 
error. As for small faults and oversights, reason it is (as you . 
say) they should be pardoned on both sides. 

Martin. If, as in their opinions and heresies they forsake the an- Martin, 3. 
cient fathers, so also in their translations they go from that text and 
ancient reading of holy scriptures, Avhich all the fathers used and ex- 
pounded; is it not plain that their translation foUoweth the vein and 
humour of their heresy ? And again, if they that so abhor from the an- 
cient expositions of the fathers, yet, if it seem to serve for them, stick not 
to make the exposition of any one doctor the very text of holy scripture ; 
what is this hut heretical wilfulness 1 See this, chap. i. numb. 43. chap. x. 
numb. 1, 2. chap, xviii. numb. 10, 11. and chap. xix. numb. 1. 

Fidke. We never go from that text and ancient reading, Fulke, 3. 
which all the fathers used and expounded ; but we translate 
that most usual text, which was first printed out of the most 
ancient copies that could be found ; and if any be since found, 
or if any of the ancient fathers did read otherwise than the 
usual copies, in any word that is any way material, in anno- 
tation, commentaries, readings, and sermons, we sjDare not to 
declare it as occasion serveth : but that we " stick not to make 
the exposition of any one doctor the very text of holy scripture," 
it is a very heinous slander, neither can it be proved in any of 
the places of your book, wliich you quote for that purpose. 

Martin. Again, if they that profess to translate the Hebrew and Martin, 4. 
Greek, and that because it maketh more for them (as they say), and 
therefore in all conferences and disputations appeal unto it as to the 
fountain and touchstone, if they (I say) in translating places of con- 
troversy flee from the Hebrew and the Greek ; it is a most certain argu- 



ment of wilful corruption. This is done many ways, and is to be observed 
also throughout the whole bible, and in all this book. 

FuLKE, 4. FulJce. We never flee from the Hebrew and Greek in 
any place, much less in places of controversy ; but we always 
hold, as near as we can, that which the Greek and Hebrew 
signifieth. But if in places of controversy we take witness 
of the Greek or vulgar Latin, where the Hebrew or Greek 
may be thought ambiguous; I trust no wise man will count 
this a flight from the Hebrew and Greek, which we always 
translate aright, whether it agree with the Seventy or vulgar 
Latin, or no. 

Martin, 5. Martin. If the Greek be idololatria and idololatra, and they trans- 
elSw\o\a- late not idolatry and idolater, but, worshipping of images, and wor- 
'^Is'^XX ' s^ipP^^ of images; and that so absurdly, that they make the apostle say, 
-rpjjs. ' covetousness is worshipping of images ;' this none would do but fools or 

^Pj'-.y- madmen, unless it were of purpose against sacred images. See chap. iii. 
Bib. an. 1577. numb. 1, 2. 

FuLKE, 5. Fulke. If the Greek words do signify as we translate, 
(as hath been often proved,) who but a wrangling quarreller 
would find fault therewith, except it were to maintain idolatry, 
or worshipping of images, which before God and all wise men 
of the world is all one? And where you say, none but fools 
or madmen would translate, Ep, v. ^ Col. iii., " covetousness is 
worshipping of images ;" I pray you, in whether order will you 
place Isidorus Clarius, of a monk of Casinas made bishop Ful- 
ginas, which in the tliird to the Colossians upon your vulgar 
Latin text, (which according to the Greek calleth idololatria, 
simulacrorum servitus, the service of images,) in his notes 
upon the place writeth this : Prceter cetera peccata avaritia 
peculiare hoc nomen assecuta est, ut dicatur esse {horrendum 
nomen) cidtus simulacrorum. Nam pecunia quid aliud est 
quam simulacrum quoddam, vel argenteum vel aureum,, 
quod homines avari plus amant, et longe majore cultu atque 
honore prosequuntur, quam ipsum Deum.^ "Above other sins, 

P The translations of Tyndale 1534, Cranmer 1539, and Bishops' 
Bible 1584, render Ephes. v. 5. os ea-nv elBcoXoXarpr^s, "which is a 
worshipper of images." The Geneva versions 1657, 1560, have it 
the same as the Authorised version of 1611, "which is an idolater." 
The Vulgate has, "quod est idolorum servitus."] 

[2 Critici. Sacri. vii. 284.3 


covetousness hath obtained this peculiar name, that it is called 
(which is an horrible name) the worshipping of images ; for 
what other thing is money but a certain image, either of silver 
or gold, which covetous men do love more, and prosecute 
with far greater worship and honour, than they do God him- 
self?" Or, if you make no count of Isidorus Clarius, in what 
degree will you account the deputies of the council of Trent ^, 
whose severe censure this note hath escaped? of fools, or of 
madmen, or of enemies to sacred images ? Yea, how will 
you excuse your own vulgar Latin translation, which turneth 
idololatria out of Greek into simulacroruni servitus, " the 
service or worship of images " ? I am[not so unaquainted with 
your shameless shifts, but I know right well that you will 
say, this Latin word simulacrum signifieth a false image, * 
or an idol that is worshipped as God ; for nothing else you 
will acknowledge to be an idol. But who shall better tell us 
what the Latin word simulacrum, doth signify, than the 
father of eloquence in the Latin tongue, even Tully liimself, 
who in liis oration pro Archia poeta useth simulacrum for 
the same that statua and imago? Speaking of the cunning 
image-makers of Greece, he saith, Statuce et imagines non 
unimorum simulacra sunt, sed corporum : " standing images 
and other images are not similitudes or images of the minds, 
but of the bodies." And in his accusation of Verreshe nameth 
effigies simulacrumque Mithridatis, " the shape and image of 
Mithridates." In his second book De Inventione he sheweth 
that Zeuxis, that famous painter, did paint the image of He- 
lena : ut excellentem m,uliebrisjhrmce pidchritudinem muta in 
sese imago contineret, Helenoe se pingere velle simulacrum 
dixit. " That a dumb image might contain in it the excellent 
beauty of a woman's form, he said he would paint the simih- 
tude or image of Helena." Also in his famihar epistles, 
Epist. Ixviii., Illi artifices corporis simulacra ignotis nota 
faciehant : " those workmen did make the images of the 
bodies known to them that knew them not." And so com- 
monly he useth simulacrum, justitice, virtutis, civitatis, 
for the image or similitude of justice, of virtue, of a city or 
I commonwealth, &c. And so do other good Latin writers, as 
weU as he, use the word simulacrum, not only for an image 

P The deputies who took off the interdiction pronounced on tho 
edition of 1642.] 




De vero Dei 
cultu. lib. e. 
cap. 43. 

De orig. 
error, lib. 2. 
cap. 2. 

that is religiously worshipped, but even generally for any 
image, and in the same signification that they use the word 
imago. But peradventure ecclesiastical writers use the word 
simulacrum only for idols forbidden ; and I perhaps shall be 
chidden of Martin for citing testimonies out of profane authors, 
to know the use of ecclesiastical terms. Let us see then what 
christian writers say to this matter, and how they use this 
word simulacrum. You yourselves say we may not trans- 
late that verse of Genesis, " God made man after his idol." 
But Lactantius^ calleth men viventia Dei simulacra, "living 
images of God," which we ought to garnish rather than simur- 
lacra insensibiliaDeorum, " the senseless images of the Gods," 
wliich the heathen garnished : yea, he hath a whole chapter, 
intituled, De simulacris et vero Dei simulacra et cultu, 
" Of images and of the true image and worship of God"; in 
wliich also he sheweth that simulacrum is called of simili- 
tude : and therefore the heathenish idols, havmg no resem- 
blance of God, cannot properly be called simulacra. St 
Ambrose^, another writer of the church, upon 1 Cor. x., upon 
that text, Non quia simulacrum est aliquid, &c., " not that 
the image is anything" : (the Greek is idolimi :) Simulacruin 
vere nihil est, quia imago videtur rei mortuce : " The image 
or idol is indeed nothing, because it seemeth to be an image 
of a dead thing." Also upon the 45th psalm : " God was 
high in the patriarchs and prophets, which did not compare 
him imaginihus terrenis et simidacris scrtipeis^, to images 
or similitudes of the earth and stone." Tertulhan^ also, a 
Latin writer, in his book De Spectacidis, speaking of cimning 
workmanship of imagery, shewed in those plays, and the 
authors of them, saith : Scimus enim nihil esse twmina mor- 
tuorum, sicut nee ipsa simulacra eorum : " we know that the 
names of those dead men are nothing, as also their images." 

1^^ Nam si deorum cultores simulacra insensibilia excolunt, et quidquid 
pretiosi habent, in ea conferunt, quibus nee uti possunt, nee gratias agere, 
quod acceperint; quanto justius est et verius, viventia Dei simulacra 
excolere, ut promereare viventem? Lactantii De vero Cultu, Lib. vi. 
cap. 13. Opera, Vol. i. p. 472. edit. Dufresnoy, Lutet. Paris. 1748.] 

P Simulacrum vere niliil est, quia imago videtur rei mortuse: sed 
sub tegmine simulacrorlim diabolus colitur. Ambros. Op. Vol. ii. p. 145.] 

P In Psal. xLv. Enarratio, prop, fin.] 

P Tertullianus de Spectaculis, p. 15. edit. Rigalt. 1634.] 


Afterward to their names, nominihus, he joineth imaginihus, 
to shew that simulacra and imagines are all one, which of 
Christians at that time were greatly abhorred in detestation 
of idolatry. St Augustme^ calleth the same simulacra, which 
before he called imagines : Cum ex desiderio mortuonmi 
constituerentur imagines, unde simidacrorum usus exortus 
est : " when for desire of the dead images were made, whereof 
the use of images came, through flattery, divine honour was 
given unto them." And so they brought in idolatry, or the 
worsliipping of images. The same Augustine'^, in his book 
Octoginta Qumstion., in the seventy-eighth question, which is 
intituled De simidacrorum j)ulchrittidine, " of the beauty of 
images," ascribeth to God the cunning by which they are 
made beautiful. And in his questions upon the book of • 
Judges, hb. vii. cap. 41, inquiring how Gideon's ephod was 
a cause of fornication to the people, when it was no idoF, he 

[f Non igitur mirum est, si prsevaricatores angeli, quorum duo 
maxima vitia sunt superbia atque fallacia, pei' liunc aerem volitantes, 
quod uni vero Deo deberi noverant, hoc sibi a suis cultoribus exe- 
gerunt, a quibus dii putari voluerunt, dante sibi locum vanitate cordis 
humani: maxrme cum ex desiderio mortuorum constituerentur ima- 
gines, unde simulacrorum usus exortus est. Augustini Conti-a Faustum. 
Lib. XXII. cap. 17. Opera, Vol. viii. p. 577. edit. Paris. 1837.] 

\y Ars ilia summa omnipotentis Dei, per quam ex nihilo facta sunt 
omnia, quae etiam sapientia ejus dicitur, ipsa operatur etiam per arti- 
fices, ut pulchra atque congruentia faciant ; quamvis non de nihilo, sed 
de aliqua materia operentur, velut ligno, aut marmore, aut ebore, et 
si quod aliud materise genus manibus artificis subditur. Sed ideo isti 
non possunt de nihilo aliquid fabricare, quia per corpus operantur, cum 
tamen cos numeros et lineamentorum convenientiam, quae per corpus 
corpori imprimunt, in animo accipiant ab ilia summa sapientia, quae ip- 
sos numeros et ipsam convenientiam longe artificiosius universo mundi 
corpori imprcssit, quod de nihilo fabricatum est; in quo sunt etiam 
corpora animalium, quae jam de aliquo, id est, de elementis mundi 
fabricantur, sed longe potentius excellentiusque, quam cum artifices 
homines easdem figuras corporum et formas in suis operibus imitantur. 
Augustini Liber de diversis Quaestionibus, lxxviii. Vol. vi. p. 125.] 

[J Hoc ergo illicitum cum fecisset Gedeon, fornicatus est post illud 
orrmis Israel, id est, sequendo illud contra legem Dei: ubi non frustra 
quaeritur, cum idolum non fuerit, id est, cujusquam Dei falsi et alieni 
simulacrum, sed ephud, id est, unum de sacramentis tabernaculi quod 
ad vestem sacerdotalem pertineret, quomodo fornicationem scriptura 
dicat populi ista sectantis atque venerantis. Augustini Quaestiones in 
Judices, xLi. Vol. in. p. 939.] 


plainly distinguisheth simulacrum from idolum, as the ge- 
neral from the special, Cum idolum non fuerit, id est cujus- 
piam dei falsi et alieni simulacrum : " when it was no idol, 
that is to say, an image of some false or strange God." Again 
he saith : " Those things that were commanded to be made in 
the tabernacle, were rather referred to the worship of God, 
than that anything of them should be taken for God, or for 
an image of God, pro Dei simulacro. So that simulacrum 
with St Augustine signifieth as generally as image, and can- 
not be restrained to signify an idol in the evil part, except 
you add, that it is an image of a false or strange god. Ar- 
nobius, an ecclesiastical writer of the Latin church, useth the 
word simidacrum for an image generally ; calling man also 
simulacrum Dei, (as Lactantius' doth the image of God,) 
Cont. gent. lib. vi. Putatis autem nos occultare quod colimus, 
si delubra et aras non habemus ? Quod enim simidacrum 
Deo fingam, cum si recte existimes sit Dei homo ipse sim,u- 
lacrum ? " Think you that we do hide that which we worship, 
if we have no temples and altars? For what image shall 
I feign to God? whereas, if you judge rightly, man himself is 
the image of God." You see therefore that simulacrum sig- 
nifieth not an idol worshipped for God, but even as much as 
imago, by your own rule. Last of all, (for I will not trouble 
the reader with more, although more might be brought,) Isi- 
dorus Hispalensis, an ancient bishop of the Latin church, 
Originum, lib. viii., speaking of the first inventors of images, 
which after were abused to idolatry, saith : Fuerunt etiam 
et quidam viri fortes aut urbium conditores, quibus mortuis 
homines qui eos dilexerunt simulacra finxerunt, ut haberent 
aliquod ex imaginum contemplatione solatium; sed paulatim 
hunc errorem, &c. " There were also certain vahant men, or 
builders of cities, who when they were dead, men which loved 
them made their images or counterfeits, that they might have 
some comfort in beholding the images ; but by Uttle and Httle, 
the devils persuading this error, it is certain that so it crept 
into their posterity, that those whom they honoured for the 
only remembrance of their name, their successors esteemed 

\} Itaqiie simulacrum Dei non Ulud est, quod digitis hominis ex 
lapide, aut sere, aliave materia fabricatur; sed ipse homo, quoniam et 
sentit, et movetur, et multas magnasque actiones habet. Firm. Lac- 
tantii Divin. Institut. Lib. ii. cap. 2.] 


and worsliipped as gods." Again he saith, Simulacra 
autem a similitudine nunciipata, &c. " Images are called 
simulacra of the similitude, because by the hand of the 
artificers of stone or other matter they resemble the counte- 
nance of them in whose honour they are feigned ; or they are 
called a simulando, whereof it followeth they are false things^." 
These testimonies needed not for them that be but half- 
learned, which know right well that simulacrum is synono- 
mon with imago ; but that our adversaries are so impudent, 
that to serve their idolatrous affection they care not what 
idols they invent, of words, of significations, of distinctions, so 
they may seem to say somewhat in the ears of the unlearned, 
which are not able to judge of such matters. But perhaps 
they wiU say, their vulgar Latin interpreter useth the word' 
simulacrum only for idols that are worsliipped with divine 
honour. Neither is that true ; and although it were, seemg 
it seldom useth simulacra, and most commonly idola, and 
sometimes imagines, what reason is there why we may not 
call those things images, which your interpreter calleth simu- 
lacra ? And to prove that your interpreter useth simula- 
crum for an image generally, as all other Latin writers do, 
you may see 1 Sam. cap. xix.^, where speaking of the image 
which Michol laid in the bed, to counterfeit the sickness of 
David, first he calleth it statuam, and afterward the same 
image he calleth simulacrum. And sure it is, that David 
had no idols in his house. And lest you should cavil about 
the Hebrew word teraphim*, which the Septuaginta translate 
Kevordcpia, Aquila calleth fxop(p(OfjLaTa, St Jerome telleth you Quast. Met. 

[f Sed paulatim hunc errorem, persuadentibus dsemonibus ita ut 
posteris constet irrepsisse, ut quos illi pro sola nominis memoria ho- 
noraverunt, successores deos existimarent atque colerent. Simulacra 
autem a similitudine nuncupata, eo quod manu artificis ex lapide 
aliave materia eorum vultus imitantur, in quorum honorem finguntur. 
Ergo simulacra, vel pro eo quod sunt similia, vel pro eo quod si- 
mulata atque conficta, unde et falsa sunt. Etymologiarum, Lib. viii. 
cap. 5, fi, Vol. III. p. 876. edit. Arevalo.] 

[^ The LXX. have 1 Sara. 13. kcu fka^ep »; MeX^oX ra Kevordcfiia: 
the Vulgate has, "Tulit autem Michol statuam." At the 16th verse 
the LXX. have, xai l8ov to. nevord^ia: the Vulgate, "inventum est 

\_* Et furata est Rachel idola patris sui: (Gen. xxxi. 19.) ubi nunc 
idola legimus, in Hebrseo Theraphim (D^21il) scriptum est, quae 


they signify figuras or imagines, " figures or images," which 
sometimes were abused to idolatry, as those which Rachel stole, 
and those which are mentioned Jud. xvii. Aben Ezra, and 
other of the rabbins, say they were astronomical images, to 
serve for dials, or other purposes of astrology ; and such, it 
is most like, was that which was placed in David's bed, wliich 
your interpreter calleth statuam and simulacrum. Therefore, 
whereas we have translated idololatria, Col. iii.\ " worsliip- 
ping of images," we have done rightly ; and your Latm inter- 
preter will warrant that translation, which translateth the 
same word, simulacrorum servitus, the service of images. 
It is you therefore, and not we, that are to be blamed for 
translation of that word; for where you charge us to depart 
from the Greek text, which we profess to translate, we do 
not, except your vulgar translation be false. But you, pro- 
fessing to follow the Latin, as the only true and authentical 
text, do manifestly depart from it in your translation ; for the 
Latin being simulacrorum servitus, you call it the service of 
idols, appealing to the Greek word, wliich you have set in 
the margin, eidcoXoXarpeia, and dare not translate according to 
your own Latm ; for then you should have called covetousness 
even as we do, the worshippmg or service of images. And 
yet you charge us in your notes with a marvellous impudent 
and foolish corruption. But I report me to all mdifferent 
readers, whether this be not a marvellous impudent and fool- 
ish reprehension, to reprove us for saying the same in Enghsh, 
that your own interpreter saith in Latin ; for simulacro- 
rum servitus is as well the service of images, as simulacro- 
rum artifex is a maker of images, whom none but a fool or 
a madman would call a maker of idols ; because, not the 
craftsman that frameth the image, but he that setteth it up to 
be worshipped as God, maketh an idol, accordmg to your own 

Aquila iiopcfxifiara, id est, figuras, vel imagines interpretatur. Hoc au- 
tem ideo, ut sciamus quid Judicum libro Tiieraphim sonet. (Jud. 
xvii. 6.) Hieronymi Qunestionum Hebraic, in Genesim. Opera, Vol. ii. 
p. 535. edit. Martianay.] 

P Koi rrjv TrXeove^iav, tjtls icTTiv etStoXoXarpeta. Coloss. iii. 5. " Et 
avaritiam, qusB est simulacrorum servitus." Vulg. " And covetousness, 
which is worshipping of idols." Tyndale, Cranmer. "And covetousness, 
wliich is idolatry." Geneva, Authorised. "And covetousness, which 
is worshipping of images." Bishops' Bible. "And avarice, which is 
the service of idols." Rheims.] 


acceptation of an idol. But of this matter enough at this 

Martin. If the apostle say, a Pagan idolater, and a Christian idol- Martin, 6. 
ater, by one and the same Greek word, in one and the same meaning ; ^^-^^oXd- 
and they translate, a Pagan idolater, and a Christian worsliipper of xpjjs. 
images, by two distinct words and diverse meanings ; it must needs be 
done wUfully to the foresaid purpose. See chap. iii. numb. 8, 9. 

Fulke. We translate not only pagan idolaters, but also Fulke, 6. 
Jewish idolaters, nor Christians only worshippers of images, 
but pagans also : wherefore this is a foolish observation. 
And if we do any where explicate, who is an idolater, by ' 
translating him a worsliipper of images, both the word bear- 
eth it, and it is not contrary to the sense of the scriptures, 
in which we find the worshipping of images always forbidden, 
but never commanded or allowed. 

Martin. If they translate one and the same Greek word tradition, Martin, 7. 
whensoever the scripture speaketh of evil traditions ; and never translate Trapdooai^. 
it so, whensoever it speaketh of good and apostolical traditions ; their 
intention is evident against the authority of traditions. See chap. ii. 
numb. 1, 2, 3. 

Fulke. This is answered sufficiently in confutation of Fulke, 7. 
the preface, sect. 51. The English word " tradition" sounding 
m the evil part, and taken by the papists for matter un- 
written, yet as true and as necessary as that which is con- 
tained in the holy scriptures, we have upon just cause 
avoided in such places, as the Greek word signifieth good 
and necessary doctrine, dehvered by the apostles, which is 
all contained in the scriptures ; and yet have used such English 
words as sufficiently express the Greek word used in the 
original text. Do not you yom*selves translate tradere some- 
times to betray, and sometimes to deliver ? 

Martin. Yea, if they translate "tradition," taken in ill part, where it Martin, \s. 
is not in the Greek ; and translate it not so, where it is in the Greek, tI Soy/na- 
taken in good part ; it is more evidence of the foresaid wicked intention. coPiT 20" 
See chap. ii. numb. 5, 6. 

Q2 Tt &)s Cavres eV koV/lim BoyixariCecrde ; Col. ii. 20. "Quidadhuc 
tamquam viventes in mundo decernitis?" Vulg. "Are ye led with tra- 
ditions of them that sayl" Tyndale. "Are ye led with traditions?" 


FuLKE, 8. Fulke. Our intention can be no worse than your vulgar 
Latin interpreter's was, who, where the Greek hath eOrj, 
translateth it traditions, Act. vi. And the right understanding 
of the word ^oytxaTiiCeaQe, according to the Apostle's mean- 
ing, will yield traditions, as well as 'kBri in the place before 

Martin, 9. Martin. If they make this a good rule, to translate according to the 
usual signification, and not the original derivation of words, as Beza and 

Pag. 209. Master Whitakers do ; and if they translate contrary to this inle, what 
is it but wilful corruption ? So they do in translating idolum an image, 
presbyter an elder ; and the like. See chap. iv. and chap. vi. numb. 
6, 7, 8, &c., numb. 13, &c. 

Fulke 9. Fulke. Neither Beza, nor Master Whitaker, make it 
a perpetual rule to translate according to the usual significa- 
tion ; for sometimes a word is not taken in the usual signifi- 
cation: as Foenerator\ used by your vulgar Latin interpreter, 
Luke vii., usually signifieth an usurer ; yet do you translate 
it a creditor. Likewise stabulum, used Luke x., usually 
signifieth a stable, yet you translate it an inn. So navis, 
which usually signifieth a ship, you call it a boat, Mark viii.; 
and navicula, which usually signifieth a boat, you call a ship, 
Luke V. And yet I think you meant no wilful corruption. 
No more surely did they which translated idolura an image, 
and presbyter an elder, which you cannot deny. But they 
follow the original derivation of the words ; whereas some 
of yours both go from the usual signification, and also from 
the original derivation. 

Cranmer, Bishops' Bible. "Are ye burdened with traditions?" Geneva. 
"Are ye subject to ordinances?" Authorised. "Why do you yet de- 
cree as living in the world?" Rheims. (See c. ii., n. 4.)] 

P Luke vii. 41. ■^^o XP^^'P^'-^^'''^'- '?«■'"' bavfia-rfj tivi. Vulgate, 
"Duo debitores erant cuidam fceneratori." Rhemish translation, "A 
certain creditor had two debtors." 

Luke X. 34. ^yayev avrov els ivavhoxflov. Vulgate, " duxit in sta- 
bulum", rendered by the Rhemish translator, "brought him to an 


Mark viii. 10. f}i^as ds to nXolov. Vulg. "ascendens navim." 
Rhemish translation, "going up into the boat." 

Luke V. 3. (8l8a<TK(v ■ eV rov nXoiov tovs o^Xovs. Vulgate, " do- 
cebat de navicula turbas." Rhemish version, "he taught the multi- 
tudes out of a ship."] 


Martin. If presbyter, by ecclesiastial use, be appropriated to signify Martin, 
a priest, no less than episcopus to signify a bishop, or diaconus a 
deacon ; and if they translate these two latter accordingly, and the first 
never in all the New Testament ; what can it be but wilful corruption in Whitak. 

p. 199. 

favour of this heresy, that there are no priests of the New Testament 1 
See chap. vi. numb. 12. 

Fulke. The word priest, by popish abuse, is commonly Fulke,10. 
taken for a sacrificer, the same that sacerdos in Latin. But 
the Holy Ghost never calleth the ministers of the word and 
sacraments of the New Testament 'lepel^, or sacerdotes. 
Therefore the translators, to make a difference between 
the ministers of the Old Testament and them of the New, 
calleth the one, according to the usual acception, priests, 
and the other, according to the original derivation, elders. 
Which distinction seeing the vulgar Latin text doth always 
rightly observe, it is in favour of your heretical sacrificing 
priesthood, that you corruptly translate sacerdos and pres- 
byter always, as though they were all one, a priest, as though 
the Holy Ghost had made that distinction in vain, or that 
there were no difference between the priesthood of the New 
Testament and the Old. The name of priest, according to 
the original derivation from presbyter, we do not refuse : 
but according to the common acception for a sacrificer, we 
cannot take it, when it is spoken of the ministry of the New 
Testament. And although many of the ancient fathers have 
abusively confounded the terms of sacerdos and presbyter, 
yet that is no warrant for us to translate the scripture, and 
to confound that which we see manifestly the Spirit of God 
hath distinguished. For this cause we have translated the 
Greek word TrpeafivTepo^ an elder, even as your vulgar Latin 
translator doth divers times, as Acts xv.^ and xx.^; 1 Pet. v.\ 

\J Acts XV. 22. Tore ebo^e rois anoaToXois Koi tols irpea^vrepocs. 
The Vulgate translates, " tunc placuit apostoHs et senioribus." This 
latter word is rendered " elders" by the translations of 1534, 1539, and 
Geneva, 1557. " Auncients," by the Rhemish version."] 

(^* Acts XX. 17. /ifTEKoXeaaro rovs Trpecr^uTepovs. Vulgate, " Vocavit 

[* 1 Pet. V. 1. Trpecy^vrepovs rovs ev irapaKaXcb. Vulgate, 
"Seniores ergo, qui in vobis sunt." Rhemish version, "The seniors 
therefore that are among you." 

See also Acts ii. 17. '<«'' °' npea-^vrtpoi, &c. Vulgate, "Seniores." 
Acts iv. 5. id.] 




and elsewhere calleth them seniores or majores natu, 
which you commonly call the ancients, or seniors, be- 
cause you dare not speak English, and say " the elders." 
Neither is presbyter by ecclesiastical use so appropriated to 
signify a priest, that you would always translate it so in the 
Old Testament, where your vulgar translator useth it for a 
name of office and government, and not for priests at any 
time. Neither do we always translate the Greek word 
episcopus and diaconus for a bishop and a deacon, but some- 
times for an overseer, as Act. xx., and a minister generally 

The word haptisma, by ecclesiastical use, signilieth the 
holy sacrament of baptism ; yet are you enforced, Mark vii., 
to translate haptismata " washings." Even so do we, to ob- 
serve that distmction, wliich the apostles and evangelists 
always do keep, when we call sacerdotes priests, for differ- 
ence we call preshyteros elders, and not lest the name of 
priests should enforce the popish sacrifice of the mass. For 
tliis word presbyter will never comprehend a sacrificer, or 
a sacrificing priesthood. 


Martin. If foi' God's altar they translate temple, and for Bel's idolo- 
latrical table they translate altar ; judge whether it be not of purpose 
against our altars, and in favour of their communion-table. See chap. 
xvii. numb. 15, 16. 



Fidke. If there be any such mistaking of one word 
for another, I think it was the fault of the printer rather 
than of the translator ; for the name of altar is more than 
a hundred times in the bible : and unto the story of Bel 
we attribute so small credit, that we will take no testimony 
from thence, to prove or disprove anytliing. 

printed again 

Mahtin, Martin. If at the beginning of their heresy, when sacred images 

Bib in king "^^^'^ broken in pieces, altars digged down, the catholic church's autho- 
Edw^^time,^^ rity defaced, the king made supreme head, then their translation was 
made accordingly ; and if afterward, when these errors were weU estab- 
lished in the realm, and had taken root in the people's hearts, aU was 
altered and changed in their later translations, and now they could not 
find that in the Greek, wjiich was in the former translation ; what was 
it at the first, but wilful corruption to serve the time that then was ? 
See chap. iii. 5. chap. xvii. numb. 15, chap. xv. numb. 22. 


Fulke. For images, altars, the catholic church's autho- Fulke, 
rity, the 'king's supremacy, nothing is altered in the latter ^' 
translations, that was falsely translated in the former, except 
perhaps the printer's fault be reformed. Neither can any 
thing be proved to maintain the popish images, altars, church's 
authority, or pope's supremacy, out of any translation of the 
scriptures, or out of the original itself. Therefore our trans- 
lations were not framed according to the time ; but if any 
thing were not uttered so plainly or so aptly as it might, 
why should not one translation help another ? 

Martin, If at the first revolt, when none were noted for hei'etics Martin, 


and schismatics but themselves, they did not once put the names of ' 

schism or heresy in the bible ^, but instead thereof division and sect, Bib. 1562. 
insomuch that for an heretic they said, an author of sects ; what may ' 
we judge of it but as of wilful corruption ? See chap. iv. numb. 3. 

Fulke. Yes, reasonable men may judge, that they did Fulke, 
it to shew unto the ignorant people, what the names of 
schismatic and heretic do signify, rather than to make them 
beheve, that heresy and schism was not spoken against in 
the scripture. That they translated heresy sect, they did 
it by example of your vulgar Latin interpreter, who, in the 
24th of the Acts'", translateth the Greek word alpearew^ sectce. 
In which chapter likewise, as he also hath done, they have 
translated the same word heresy. 

Martin. If they translate so absurdly at the first, that themselves Martin, 
are driven to change it for shame ; it must needs be at the first wil- '^'*' 
ful corruption. For example, when it was in the first temple, and in 
the later altar; in the first always congregation, in the later always 
church ; in the first, " to the king as chief head," in the later, " to the 

[} Titus iii. 10. AlperiKov avOpanrov fi€Ta fiiav kul devrepav vov- 
dea-iav TrapaiTov. Wiclif, 1380, renders it, " Eschew thou a man here- 
tic ;" and Tyndale, 1534, " A man that is given to heresy, after the first 
and second admonition, avoid." Cranmer's version 1539, and 1 562, has, 
" A man that is author of sects, after the first and second admonition, 
avoid." The Geneva versions of 1557, 1560, 1577, 1580, have, " Re- 
ject him that is an heretic, after once or twice admonition." The 
Rhemish, Bishops' 1584, and Authorised 1611, "A man that is an 
heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid."] 

P Acts xxiv. 5. rrjs tuiu ^a^wpaicov alp^a-ems. Vulgate, " Sectae 
Nazarenorum." Rhemish version, " Sect of the Nazarenes." " Sect of 
the Nazarites," edit. 1534, 1531), 1557.] 


king as having pre-eminence." So did Beza first translate carcase, and 
afterward soul^. Which aUeration in all these places is so great, that it 
could not be negligence at the first or ignorance, but a plain heretical 
intention. See chap. xvii. numb. 15, chap. v. numb. 4, 5, chap. xv. 
numb. 22, chap. vii. numb. 2. 

FuLKE, Fulke. Nay, it may be an oversight, or escape of neg- 

ligence, or the printer's fault, as it is manifest in that quarrel 
you make of temple for altar : for in Thomas Matthew's 
translation, the first that was printed in English with au- 
thority, there is altar in both places, 1 Cor. ix, and x. For 
the term congregation changed into church, it was not for 
shame of the former, which was true, but because the other 
term of church was now well understood, to shew that the 
word of scripture agreeth with the word of om' creed ; or 
perhaps to avoid your fond quarrel, not now first picked, to 
the term congregation. Whereas the former was, " To the 
king or chief head," the latter saying, " the king as having 
pre-eminence," doth nothing derogate unto the former, and 
the former is contained under the latter. For I hope you 
will grant, that the king is chief head of his people ; or if 
the word Jiead displease you (be'cause you are so good a 
Frenchman), tell us what chief doth signify, but an head ? 
Now tliis place of Peter speaketh not particularly of the 
king's authority over the Church, or in church matters : 
therefore if it had been translated " supreme head," we could 
have gained no greater argument for the supremacy in ques- 
tion, than we may by the word pre-eminence, or by the 
word extolling, which you use^. That Beza altered the word 
cadaver into animam, I have shewed he did it to avoid 

P OvK fyKaraXei-^fis ttjv ^vx^v fiov els abov. " Non derelinques 
animam meam," Edit. 1582. "Non derelinques cadaver meum," Edit. 
1556. Nov. Test. Bezse. "Because thou wilt not leave my soul in 
grave," New Test, translated out of Greek by Beza, Englished by 
L. Tomson. C. Barker, 1583. fol.] 

P Extolling a mistake apparently for excelling. The translations 
alluded to here are of 1 Pet. ii. 13 : 'YTroTayijTf ovv ivaa-ri avSpooirlvrj 
Kvlaei 8ia rov Kvpiov' eiVe jSacrtXcZ, as invepexovri. " Whether it be 
unto the king as unto the chief head," Tyndale, 1534 ; Cranmer, 1539 ; 
Geneva, 1557. " VVliether it be unto the king as unto the superior," 
Geneva, 1660. "Whether it be to the king, as excelling," Rheims, 1582. 
"AVliether it be unto the king as having the pre-eminence," Bishops' 
Bible, 1584. ""VVliether it be to the king as supreme." Authorised 
version, 1611.] 


oifenco, and because the latter is more proper to the Greek, 
although 'the Hebrew word, which David doth use, may 
and doth signify a dead body or carcase. 

Martin. If they will not stand to all their translations, but fly to Martin, 
that namely, which now is read in their churches^ : and if that which 
is now read in their churches, differ in the points aforesaid from that 
that was read in their churches in king Edward's time ; and if from 
both these they fly to the Geneva bible, and from that again to the 
other aforesaid : what shall we judge of the one or the other, but that 
all is voluntary, and as they list ? See chap. iii. numb. 10, 11, 12, chap. 
X. numb. 12. 

Fulke. If of three translations we prefer that which Fulke, 
is the best, what sign of corruption is this ? If any faidt 
have, either of ignorance or neghgence, escaped in one, which 
is corrected in another, and we prefer that which is corrected 
before that which is faulty, what corruption can be judged 
in either ? Not every fault is a wilful corruption, and much 
less an heretical corruption. The example that you quote 
out of your 3rd chapter, concerning the translation of 
idolum, is no flying from our translation to another, but 
a confutmg of Howlet's cavil against our church service ; 
because this word is therein read translated an image, 
1 John v.*, whereas in that bible, which by authority is 
to be read in the church service, the word in the text is 
idols, and not images ; and yet will we justify the other to 
be good and true, which readeth, " Babes, keep yourselves 

P Archbishop Parker's translation, commonly called the Bishops' 
Bible, was first printed in folio in the year 1568, and in 4to. in 
1569. It was ordered, in the Convocation of 1571, (Wilkins, Cone. 
Vol. IV. p. 263.) that copies should be provided by all dignitaries for 
their private houses, and by all church officers for the use of their 
cathedral and parish churches. (See Constitutions and Canons Eccle- 
siastical, in Dr Cardwell's Synodalia, Vol. i. p. 123. Documentaiy 
Annals, Vol. ii. p. 11.) The edition quoted in these notes is that 
printed by Barker, fol. 1584. 

The Injunctions of Edw. VI. 1547, do not specify what particular 
translation shall be used : neither do Queen Elizabeth's in 1559.] 

r* TeKvia, (PvXd^aTe eavroiis ano twv ilbmKoiv, 1 John v. 21. *' Filioli, 
custodite vos a simulacris," Vulgate. "Babes, keep yourselves from 
images," Tyndale, 1534; Cranmer, 1539. "Babes, keep yourselves 
from idols," Geneva, 1557, 1560; Bishops' Bible, 1584; Rhemish, 1582; 
Authorised Version, 1611.] 

r 1 S 

[fulke. J 







from images," as your vulgar Latin text is a simulacris, 
wherein you fly from your own authentical text to the Greek, 
which, except you think it make for your purpose, you are 
not ashamed to count falsified and corrupted. 

Martin. If they gladly use these words in ill part, where they are 
not in the original text, procession, shrines, devotions, excommunicate, 
images; and avoid these words which are in the original, hymns, 
grace, mystery, sacrament, church, altar, priests, catholic traditions, 
justifications ; is it not plain that they do it of purpose to disgrace or 
suppress the said tilings and speeches used in the catholic church 1 See 
chap. xxi. numb. 5, and seq. chap. xii. numb. 3. 

Fulke. Who would be so mad, but blind mahce, to 
tliink they would disgrace or suppress the things or names 
of catholic church, whereof they acknowledge themselves 
members ; of grace, by which they confess they are saved ; 
of hymns, which they use to the praise of God ; of justi- 
fications, when they profess they are of themselves unjust ; 
of sacraments and mysteries, by which the benefits of Christ 
are sealed up unto them ; of altar, when they believe that 
Jesus Christ is our altar ; of priests, when they hold that 
all good Christians are priests ; of devotions, when they 
dispute that ignorance is not the mother of true devotion, 
but knowledge ; of excommunication, which they practise daily ? 
As for the names and things of procession, slirines, images, 
traditions beside the holy Scriptures in rehgion, they have 
just cause to abhor. Neither do they use the one sort of 
terms, without probable ground out of the original text ; 
nor avoid the other, but upon some good special cause, as 
in the several places (when we are charged with them) shall 



Martin. If in a case that malceth for them they strain the very 
original signification of the word, and in a case that maketh against 
them they neglect it altogether; what is this but wilful and of pur- 
pose? See chap. vii. numb. 36. 

Fulke. I answer, we strain no words to signify other- 
wise than the nature and use of them will afford us, 
neither do we spare to express that which hath a shew against 
us, if the property or usual signification of the word, with 
the circumstance of the place, do so require it. 


Martin. If in words of ambiguous and diverse signification they Martin, 
will have it signify here or there as it pleaseth them ; and that so ^^' 
vehemently, that here it must needs so signify, and there it must not; 
and both this and that to one end, and in favour of one and the 
same opinion; what is this but wilful translation? So doth Beza urge Bezain 
yvvdiKa to signify wife, and not to signify wife, both against virginity and ix. 5.' 
and chastity of priests : and the English bible translateth accordingly. ' • ^"- ' • 
See chap. xv. numb. 11, 12. 

Fulke. To the general charge I answer generally, Fulke, 
We do not as you slander us ; nor Beza, whom you shame- ^^' 
fully behe, to urge the word yvvaiKa, 1 Cor. vh. 1^ not to 
signify a wife, against virginity and chastity of priests ; for 
clean contrariwise, he reproveth Erasmus restraining it to 
a wife, which the apostle saith generally, "It is good for a. 
man not to touch a woman ;" which doth not only contam a 
commendation of virginity in them that be unmarried, but 
also of continency in them that be married. And as for 
the virginity or chastity of priests, he speaketh not one word 
of it in that place, no more than the apostle doth. 

Now, touching the other place that you quote, 1 Cor. ix. 5^, 

[' Bonum fuerit viro mulierem non attingere, is the rendering of 
Beza's version, upon which he has these remarks: Mulierem non at- 
tingere, yvvaiKos nff airTeadai. Erasmus, uxorem non attingere, id est, 
(ut ipse interpretatur) ab uxore ducenda abstinere. Ego vero existi- 
mo Paulum verbo anrea-dai signiiicasse in genere viri cum muliere 
congressum: quem tamen per se non damnat, quum eo velit homines 
ut remedio uti, idque in matrimonio, si continere se non possint, minime 
id facturus si malum esset conjugium. Nam praecipit quidem humana 
prudentia, ut ex duobus malis quod minus malum est eligamus : 
Christiana vero religio contra, ut quicquid malum est sine ulla ex- 
ceptione vitemus. Falsa est igitur Hieronymi doctrina, qui adversus 
Jovinianum disserens, verbum aiTTfo-Bai ita urget, quasi in ipso etiam 
mulieris contactu sit periculum : quum constet virum non minus bona 
conscientia uti posse ac debere uxore sua quam esca et potu, ut 
recte defendit Augustinus. Nov. Test. 1556.] 

P The words are (1 Cor. ix. 5.), /^v ovk. expfiev i^ova-lav abek^i)v 
yvvaiKa ivepiayeiv, a5y koX oi Xoiiroi aTtocTTokoi. ; Translated in Tyndale's 
version of 1534: "Either, have we not power to lead about a sister 
to wife, as well as other apostles?" In Cranmer's, 1539: "Have we 
not power to lead about a sister to wife, as well as other apostles?" 
In the Geneva version, 1557: "Either, have we not power to lead 
about a wife, being a sister, as well as other apostles ?" The Rhemish 



Beza doth truly translate d^€\(j)iju yvvaiKa, "a sister to wife," 
because the word sister is first placed, which comprehendcth 
a woman, and therefore the word yvvaiKa following must 
needs expHcate, what woman he meaneth, namely, a wife. 
For it were absurd to say, a sister a woman. Therefore 
the vulgar Latin interpreter perverteth the words, and saith, 
mulierem sororem. It is true, that many of the ancient fathers, 
as too much addict to the singleness of the clergy, though 
they did not altogether condemn marriage in them, as the 
papists do, did expound the sister, whereof St Paul speaketh, 
of certain rich matrons, which followed the apostles whither- 
soever they went, and ministered to them of their substance ; as 
we read that many did to our Saviour Christ, Matt, xxvii. 55. 
Luke viii. 3. But that exposition cannot stand, nor agree 
with this text for many causes. First, the placing of the 
words, which I have before spoken of. Secondly, this word, 
yvvoLKa, were needless, except it should signify a wife : for 
the word sister signifieth both a woman and a faithful 
woman; and otherwise it was not to be doubted, lest the 
apostle would lead a heathen woman with him. Thirdly, 
the apostle speaketh of one woman, and not many ; whereas 
there were many that followed our Saviour Christ, whereas 
one alone to follow the apostle might breed occasion of ill 
suspicion and offence, which many could not so easily. 
Fourthly, those that are mentioned in the gospel our Saviour 
Christ did not lead about, but they did voluntarily follow 
him : but the apostle here saith, that he had authority, as 
the rest of the apostles, to lead about a woman, wliich ar- 
gueth the right that an husband hath over his wife, or of 
a master over his maid. Fifthly, it is not all one, if women 
could travel out of Galilee to Jerusalem, which was nothing 
near an hundred miles, that women could follow the apostles 
into all parts of the world. Sixthly, if the cause why such 
women are supposed to have followed the apostles, was to 
minister to them of their substance, the leading them about 
was not burdenous to the church, but helpful : but the apostle 
testifieth, that he forbare to use this hberty, because he would 

version, 1582, has it: "Have we not power to lead about a woman, a 
sister, as also the rest of the apostles?" The Authorised Version, 
1611: "Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as 
other apostles ?"] 


not be burdenous to the church of Corinth, or to any of 
them. Seventhly, seeing it is certain that Peter had a wife, 
and the rest of the apostles are by antiquity reputed to have 
been all married ; it is not credible that Peter, or any of 
the rest, would leave the company of their own wives, and 
lead strange women about with them. As for the objection 
that you make in your note upon the text, To what end 
should he talk of burdening the Corinthians with finding 
liis wife, when he himself clearly saith that he was single ? 
I answer. Although I think he was single, yet is it not so 
clear as you make it ; for Clemens Alexandrinus thinketh 
he had a wife, which he left at Phihppi by mutual consent. 
But albeit he were single, it was lawful for Mm to have 
married, and Barnabas also, as well as all the rest of the' 
apostles. Again, to what end should he talk of burdening 
the church with a woman, which was not his wife, when 
such women, as you say, ministered to the apostles of their 
goods ? Whereby it should follow, that none of the apostles 
burdened the churches where they preached with their own 
finding, which is clean contrary to the apostle's words and 
meaning. Wherefore the translation of Beza, and of our 
church, is most true and free from all corruption. 

Martin. If the puritans and grosser Calvinists disagree about the Martin, 
translations, one part preferring the Geneva English bible, the other the 
bible read in their church ; and if the Lutherans condemn the Zuinglians' 
and Calvinists' translations, and contrariwise ; and if all sectaries reprove 
each another's translation ; what doth it argue, but that the translations 
differ according to their diverse opinions? See their books written one 
against another. 

Fulke. Here again is nothing but a general charge of Fulke, 
(Hsagreeing about translations, of puritans and Calvinists, Lu- ^^• 
therans and Zuinghans, and of all sectaries reproving one ano- 
ther's translation, with as general a demonstration, " See the 
books written one against another ;" which would ask longer 
time than is needful to answer such a vain cavil, when it 
is always sufiicient to deny that wliich is affirmed without 
certain proof. 


Martin. If the English Geneva bibles themselves dare not follow 20. 
their master Beza, whom they profess to translate, because in their acu^I'u^ 




"• 23; iii. 21; opinion he goetli wide, and that in places of controversy; how wilful 
2 Tiiess. ii. 15. WES he iQ SO translating ! See chap. xii. numb. 6, 8 ; chap. xiii. numb. 1. 

FuLKE, Fulke. It is a very impudent slander. The Geneva 

^^' bibles do not profess to translate out of Beza's Latin trans- 

lation ^ but out of the Hebrew and Greek ; and if they agree 
not always with Beza, what is that to the purpose, if they 
agree with the truth of the original text? Beza oftentimes 
followeth the purer phrase of the Latin tongue, wliich they 
neither would nor might follow in the Enghsh. If in cHs- 
senting from Beza, or Beza from them, they or he dissent 
from the truth, it is of human frailty, and not of heretical 
wilfulness. The places being examined shall discover your 



Martin. If for the most part they reprehend the old vulgar trans- 
lation, and appeal to the Greek ; and yet in places of controversy some- 
time for their more advantage (as they think) they leave the Greek, 
and follow our Latin translation; what is it else, but voluntary and 
l^artial translation? See chap. ii. numb. 8, chap. vi. numb. 10, 21, 
chap. vii. numb. 39, chap. x. numb. 6. 

Fulke. We never leave the Greek to follow your vulgar 
translation, as in the places by you quoted I will prove mani- 
festly : but I have already proved that you leave the Latin 
and appeal to the Greek, in translating simulacra, idols, 
Col. iii. and 1 John v. 


Beza, Lukel 
Rom. ii. 
Rev. six. 8. 
Beza in 
Kev. xjx. 8. 



Martin. If otherwise they avoid this word justifications^ altogether, 
and yet translate it when they cannot choose, but with a commentaiy 
that it signifieth good works that are testimonies of a lively faith ; doth 
not this heretical commentary shew their heretical meaning, when they 
avoid the word altogether ? See chap. viii. numb. 1, 2, 3. 

Fulke. To avoid the word altogether, and yet sometime 
to translate it, I see not how they can stand together ; for 

\} The Geneva bible, edit. Rouland Hall, 1560, professes, on the 
title page, to be "translated according to the Ebrue and Greke, and 
conferred with the best translations in divers languages."] 

[2 TTopevofievoi iv Traaais rais ivTokais Kai diKaicofiacri. Luke i. 6. 
"Incedentes in omnibus mandatis et constitutionibus." Vulgate. "Ince- 
dentes in omnibus mandatis et constitutionibus." Beza's version. 
"Going in all the maundementis and justifiyngis." Wiclif. "Walked 
in all the laws and oi'dinances." Tyndale, Cranmer. "Commandments 
and ordinances." Geneva, Bishops' Bible, Authorised.] 


he that cloth sometimes translate it, doth not altogether avoid 
it. But you will say, they do altogether avoid it in all such 
places where they do not translate it. That is altogether 
false ; for the Geneva translation, Luke i.^, telleth you that 
the Greek word signifieth justifications, and yieldeth a rea- 
son why it doth in that place otherwise translate it : and 
if to translate the Greek word oiKaicDtia otherwise than 
justification, must needs shew an heretical meaning, then must 
you needs say, that your vulgar Latin translator had an 
heretical meaning ; for in the second place by you quoted, 
namely, Rom. ii. 26, he translateth it justitias*, hkewise 
Rom. i. 32^ justitiam, so hkewise Rom. v. 18^ And if it be 
an heretical commentary, to say that good works are a 
testimony of a lively faith, you will also condemn the apostles- 
of heresy, Avhich teach it to be impossible to please God 
without faith, Heb. xi., and that whatsoever is not of faith, 
is sin, Rom. xiv., if there be any good works that are 
not testimonies of a lively faith. But it is sufficient for you 
to call what you will heresy, and heretical falsification, and 
corruption ; for your disciples are bound to beheve you, 
though you say the gospel be heresy, and the apostles them- 
selves heretics. Gregory Martin calleth this an heretical 
commentary ; what need you seek other proof? 

Martin. Wlaen by adding to the text at tlieir pleasure they make Martin, 
the apostle say, that by Adam's offence sin came on all men, but that ~"^' 
by Christ's justice the benefit only abounded toward all men, not that No"Telt.'an. 
justice came on all; whereas the apostle maketh the case alike, with- j^^g- ^''^• 
out any such diverse additions, to wit, that we are truly made just by '^o'^- '^- ^^^ 
Christ, as by Adam we are made sinners : is not tliis most wilful cor- 
ruption for their heresy of imputative and phantastical justice? See 
chap. xi. numb. 1. 

P The Geneva Bible 1560, has this note on Luke i. 6. " The Greek 
word signifieth justifications, whereby is meant the outward observation 
of the ceremonies commanded by God."] 

[4 Ta BiKaiafiaTa tov vofiov (pvXdaaj). Rom. ii. 26. " Justitias legis 
custodiat." Vulgate.] 

P olrives TO StKa/u/ia tov Qeov iniyvovTes. Rom. i. 32. " Qui cum 
justitiam Dei cognovissent." Vulg.] 

I^** oxjTd) Koi hi ivos diKaicofiaros els navras avdpanrovs, els biKaiaxnv 
Cioijs. Rom. v. 18. "Sic et per unius justitiam in omnes homines in 
justificationem vitte." SiKoiot KaTa(TTadt'}crovTai ol ttoXXoi. Rom. v. 19. 
"Many schuln be just." AViclif. "Shall many be made righteous." 
Tyndale, Cranmerj Geneva, Authorised.] 


FuLKE, Fulke. The verse by you quoted, Rom. v. 18', is a 

manifest eclipsis or defective speech, to make any sense 
whereof there must needs be added a nominative case and 
a verb. Now by what other nominative case and verb may 
the sense be suppHed, but by that which the apostle him- 
self giveth before, ver. 15. ? unto which" all that followeth 
must be referred for expHcation : where he saith, as you 
yourselves translate it, "If by the offence of one many 
died, much more the grace of God and the gift in the 
grace of one man Jesus Christ hath abounded upon many." 
Seeing therefore that defective speech must be supphed for 
understanding in tliis probation, what is so apt as that which 
the apostle himself hath expressed before in the proposition ? 
Although you m your translation are not disposed to supply 
it, because you had rather the text should be obscure and 
wondered at, than that it should be plain and easy, or able 
to be understood : albeit in other places you stick not to 
add such words as be necessary for exphcation of the text, 
as every translator must do, if he will have any sense to 
bo understood in liis translation. For that defective speech, 
which in some tongue is well understood, in some other 

[} "Therefore as by the guilt of one into all men into condemna- 
tion, 80 by the righteousness of one into all men into justifying of 
life." Wiclif. "Likewise, then, as by the sin of one condemnation 
came on all men, even so by the justifying of one cometh the right- 
eousness that bringeth life upon all men." Tyndale. "Likewise, then, 
as by the offence of one gUtship came on all men to condemnation; 
even so, by the justifying of one, the benefit abounded upon all men 
to the justification of life." Geneva. " Therefore, as by the off'ence of 
one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so, by the 
righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men imto justification 
of life." Authorised version. 

"Apa ovv cos 8i evos wapaTrTcofiaros els Travras avdpdnrovs, els 
KaraKpip-a' ovtm koi 8i tvos diKauofMaTos, els Jravras avdpanovs, els 
8iKai(0(nv C^fjs. 

"As by the sin of one (sin came) on all men to condemnation; 
even so by the righteousness of one (good came) upon aU men, even 
to the righteousness of life." Rom. v. 18. edit. Jugge. 1568. 

"Likewise, then, as by the offence of one (the fault came) on all 
men to condemnation; so by the justifying of one (the benefit abound- 
ed) toward all men to the justification of life.'' llom. v. 18. edit. 


is altogether void of sense, and must be explicated by ad- 
dition of 'that wliich is necessarily or probably to be un- 
derstood. So you translate, Matth. viii. Quid nobis ? " What 
is between us?" Mark ii. Post dies^, "after some days." 
Accumheret, " he sat at meat ;" and many such like. But 
where you cliarge our translation to say, the benefit (only) 
abounded toward all men, not that justice came on all ; you 
do shamefully add to our translation: for the word 'only' is 
of your own slanderous addition, and the rest is your mali- 
cious collection. For we mean not to extenuate the benefit 
of Christ's redemption, but by all means to set it forth to 
the uttermost : as the word ' abounded' doth shew, if you 
do not blemish the light of it by your blockish addition 
of this word ' only'. And that we are truly made just by • 
Christ, and yet by imputation, as we are truly made sinners 
by Adam, and yet partly by imputation, as we are actually 
by corruption, we do at all times and in all places most wil- 
lingly confess : for the justice of Chi'ist which is imputed 
unto us by faith, is no false or phantastical justice, as you 
do no less blasphemously than phantastically affirm ; but a 
true and effectual justice, by which we are so truly made 
just, that we shall receive for it the crown of justice, wliich 
is eternal life, as the apostle proveth at large, Rom. iv. and 
v., whom none but an hell-hound will bark against, that 
he defendeth " imputative and phantastical justice." 

Martin. But in this case of justification, when the question is Martin, 
whether only faith justify, and we say no, having the express words of J^^gsii 24. 
St James ; they say, yea, having no express scripture for it : if in this ^^Jh' Jonf^a 
case they will add ' only' to the very text, is it not most horrible and (?'• ''tp- edit. 

" "^ •' ' Witteb. an. 

devilish corruption? So did Luther, whom our Enghsh protestants issi.whitak. 
honour as their father, and in this heresy of only faith are his own 
children. See chap. xii. 

Fulke. In the question of justification by faith only, Fulke, 
Avhere St James saith no, we say no also ; neither can it ^^' 
be proved that Ave add this word ' only' to the text in any 
translation of ours. If Luther did in his translation add the 
word 'only' to the text, it cannot be excused of wrong trans- 
lation in word, although the sense might well bear it. But 

[^ "Intravit Caphamaum post dies." Vulg. edit. Clem. "Post dies 
octo." edit. Sixt.] 


seeing Luther cloth himself confess it, he may be excused 
of fraud, though not of lack of judgment. But why should 
our translation be charged with Luther's corruption? Be- 
cause " our English protestants honour liim as their father." 
A very lewd slander : for we call no man father upon earth, 
though you do call the pope your father ; albeit in another 
sense Luther was a reverend father of the church for his 
time. But as toucliing the doctrine of only faith justifying, 
it hath more patrons of the fathers of the ancient primitive 
church, than Martin can bear their books, though he would 
break his back, who in the same plain words do affirm it as 
Luther doth, that only faith doth justify. And the apostle 
which saith^ " that a man is justified by faith without the 
works of the law," speaketh more plainly for justification by 
faith only (as we do teach it), than if he had said a man is 
justified by faith only. Which text of Rom. iii., and many 
other, are as express scripture to prove that we teach and 
beheve, as that St James saith against justification by faith 
only, where he speaketh of another faith, and of another 
justification, than St Paul speaketh of, and we understand, 
when we hold that a man is justified by faith only, or 
without works of the law, which is all one. 

Martin, Martin. If these that account themselves the great Grecians and 

25. Hebricians of the world, will so translate for the advantage of their cause, 

ranee of the as though they had no skill in the world, and as thouarh they knew 

Greek and -ii-.r.. n i • ci 

Hebrew neither the signification of words, nor propriety of phrases in the said 
their"feise language ; is it not to be esteemed shameless corruption? 

and wilful 

translation r~< ii -^r ^ ' n ' i ii 

thereof J'lUke. I OS 1 but II it camiot be proved that so thev 

against their i i • 

knowledge, translate, then is this an impudent slander, as all the rest 

25. ' are ; and so it will prove when it cometh to be tried. 

Martin, Martin. I will not speak of the German heretics, who to maintain this 

26. heresy, that all our works, be they never so good, are sin, translated for 

Brentius. Me- ^n i ' ./ o > ;> 

lancth. See Tibi mil peccnvi, " to thee only have I sinned, thus, Tibi solum peccavi, 
Dial. I. c. 12. that is, " I have nothing else but sinned : whatsoever I do, I sin :" Avhereas 
Jof luoVw. neither the Greek nor the Hebrew will possibly admit that sense. Let 
"^llh Tib these pass as Lutherans, yet Avilful corrupters, and acknowledged of our 
wiiitai. pag. English protestants for their good brethren. But if Beza translate, 


P Rom. iii. 28.] 

[^ Lindani Dubitantium Dialogus : de origine Sectanim hujus seculL 
Colonic. 1571. 8vo. Foppen's Bib. Belg. p. 411.] 



ert ovTuv rjiibiv aadevav , " when we were yet of no strength j" as the Rom. v. 6. 
Geneva English Bible also doth interpret it, whereas every young 
Grecian knoweth that aa-Bevrfs is weak, feeble, infirm, and not altogether 
without strength : is not this of pui*pose to take away man's free will 
altogether 1 See chap. x. numb. 13. 

Fulke. I know not what German heretics those be which Fulke, 

maintain that heresy, that all our works, be they never so 

good, are sin, except they be the Libertines, with whom we 
have nothing to do. For we never say that good works 
are sin, for that were all one to say that good were evil. 
But that all our good works are short of that perfection 
which the law of God requireth, we do humbly confess 
against ourselves : or else, whatsoever seemeth to be a good 
work, and is done of men void of true faith, is sin. For. 
these assertions we have the scripture to warrant us. And 
if, to prove the latter, any man hath translated those words 
of David in the 51st psalm, lecha, lebadecha, tibi solum, or, ^ttj^^ ^^ 
tantummodo tibi peccavi, &c. " To thee only, or altogether to ' * * 
thee I have sinned," in respect of his natural corruption wliich 
he doth express in the next verse, he hath not departed one 
whit from the Hebrew words, nor from the sense which the 
words may very well bear ; which he that denieth, rather 
sheweth himself ignorant in the Hebrew tongue, than he 
that so translateth. For what doth lebad signify, but solum -y^S 
or tantum ? and therefore it may as well be translated solum 
tibi, as soli tibi. And the apostle, Rom. iii., proving by 
the latter end of that verse all men to be unjust, that 
God only may be true, and every man a bar, as it is 
written, " that thou mayest be justified in thy words," &c. 
favoureth that interpretation of Bucer, or whosoever it is 
beside. "But if Beza translate en ovtvov i^fxwv aaOevcou, 
' when we were yet of no strength,' as the Geneva English 
Bible doth also interpret it, whereas every young Grecian 
knoweth that aaOei'ii]^ is weak, feeble, infirm, and not al- 
together without strength : is not this of purpose to take 
away man's free will altogether?" Chapter x, numb. 13. 
Nay, it is to shew, as the apostle's purpose is, that we have no 
strength to fulfil the law of God without the grace of Christ ; 

[' "Quum adhuc nullis viribus essemus." Beza's version, edit. 1556. 
"Quum adhuc infirmi essemus." Vulg. Rom. v. 6.] 


even as Christ himself saith, "Without me you can do nothing," 
John XV. 5. But every young Grecian (say you) knoweth 
that daOeuTjs is weak, feeble, infirm, and not altogether with- 
out strength. And is there then any old Grecian that will 
prove, that ao-^ecj/v alway signifieth him that is weak, but 
not void of strength ? Doth aaOev^s always signify him 
that hath some strength? Certain it is, that the apostle 
speaketh here of those that were void of strength; for the 
same he calleth in the same verse da€J3e7<i, ungodly, or void 
of religion, for whom Christ died. How say you then? had 
ungodly persons any strength to be saved, except Christ had 
died for them? Therefore he that in tliis place translateth 
daOevi]^, weak, feeble, infirm, must needs understand men so 
weak, feeble, and infirm, as they have no strength. For 
how might it else be truly said, " What hast thou that thou 
hast not received ? " 1 Cor. iv. 7. Yes, say you, we have 
some piece of free will at least, some strength to climb to 
heaven, even without the grace of God, without the death 
and redemption of Christ. If you say no, why cavil you 
at Beza's translation and ours? The Greek word dadevrj^, 
as great a Grecian as you would make yom'self, signifieth 
weak or infirm, sometime that which yet hath some strength, 
sometime that which hath no strength at all, as I will give 
you a plain example out of St Paul, 1 Cor, xv. 43. The 
dead body is sown ev daOeveia, in weakness : it riseth again 
in power. Doth not weakness here signify privation of 
all strength ? It is marvel but you will say, a dead 
body is not altogether void of strength. Beza telleth you 
out of St Paul, Rom. viii. 6, that the wisdom of the 
flesh without Christ is death, it is enmity against God, it 
is neither subject unto the law of God, neither can it be : 
where is the strength of free will that you complain to be 
taken away by our translation? Beza doth also tell you, 
that St Paul calleth all the ceremonies of the law daOevrj, as 
they are separated from the Spii'it of Christ, the weak and 
beggarly elements. Gal. iv. Are they not void of strength 
and riches, which are void of Christ's grace and Spirit? 
But your purpose was only to quarrel, and seek a knot' 
in a rush ; and therefore you regarded not what Beza hath 
written to justify his translation. , 


Martin. If Calvin translate, Non ego, sed gratia Dd qucs mihi aderat, Martin, 
may not mean Grecians control him, that he also translateth falsely j cor. xv. 
against free will, because the preposition (tvv doth require some other 'i °"i"' ^M"'* 
participle to be understood, that should signify a co-operation with free 
will, to wit, avyKoinda-aa-a, " which laboured with me" ? See chap. x. 
numb. 2. 

Fulke. The Greek is, »/ X"/"^ "^^^ Geou »? avv e/noi, Fulke, 
" the grace of God which is with me." A mean Grecian will 
rather understand the verb substantive, than the participle, 
as you do, and then must needs again understand the verb 
cKOTTiaae, " hath laboured." For thus the sense must be, if 
your participle be understood, 'I have laboured more than 
they all, yet not I, but the grace of God wliich laboured 
with me, hath laboured.' Who would commit such a vain 
tautology? The sense is therefore plain, which the apostle's 
words do yield in the judgment of better Grecians than 
ever G. Martin was, or will be. ' I have not laboiu-ed 
more than the rest of the apostles, of mine own strength 
or will ; but the grace of God which is in me, or with me, 
hath given me greater strength and abihty to travail in 
the gospel, than to them.' But you are afraid lest it should 
be thought, that the apostle had done nothing, like unto a 
block, forced only : a blockish fear, and a forced collection. 
For when the apostle first saith, he hath laboured, and after 
denieth, and saith, I have not laboured ; what sensible man 
will not gather, that in the former he laboured as a man 
endued with hfe, sense, and reason, and in the latter that 
he laboured not by his own strength or vii-tue, but by the ♦ 
grace of God, to which he attributeth all that he is in 
such respect? "By the grace of God I am that I am," saith 
he ; which manifestly excludeth natural free will, to that 
which is good and appertaining to the glory of God. For 
which cause he denieth that he laboured more than the 
rest : " Not I, but the grace of God wliich was present with 

Martin. If when the Hebrew beareth indifferently, to say, Sin lieth Martin, 
at the door^ ; and unto thee the desire thereof shall be subject, and thou q^^ j^ ^ 
shalt rule over it ; the Geneva English bible translate the first without „„. 1579. 

[} Explained in the margin, '"'Sin shall still torment thy conscience." 
Geneva bible, 1560.] 







scruple, and the latter not, because of the Hebrew grammar ; is not this 
also most wilful against free wUl ? See chap. x. numb. 9. 

Fulke. I grant this to be done willingly against free 
will, but yet no false nor corrupt translation. For in the 
participle rohets, which signifieth lying, is a manifest enal- 
lage or change of the gender, to declare that in chataoth, 
which word being of the feminine gender signifieth sin, is 
to be imderstood auon, or some such word as signifieth the 
punishment of sin, which may agree with the participle in 
the masculine gender, that the antithesis may be perfect. 
*If thou doest well, shall there not be reward or remission? 
if thou doest evil, the punishment of thy sin is at hand.' 
But that the latter end of the verse can not be referred to 
sin, but unto Cain, not only the grammar, but also the plain 
words and sense of the place, doth convince. For that which 
is said of the appetite, must have the same sense, which 
the same words have before, of the appetite of Eve towards 
her husband Adam, that in respect of the law of nature, and 
her infirmity, she should desire to be under his government, 
and that he should have dominion over her. So Abel the 
younger brother should be affected toward his elder brother 
Cain, to whom by the law of nature he was loving and 
subject, and therefore no cause why Cain should envy him 
as he did. Otherwise it were a strange meaning, that sin, 
which is an insensible thing, should have an appetite or 
desire toward Cain, who rather had an appetite to sin, than 
sin to him. But you are so greedy of the latter part, that 
you consider not the former. I know what the Jewish 
rabbins, favourers of heathenish free will, absurdly do ima- 
gine to salve the matter ; but that wliich I have said may 
satisfy godly Christians. 



Calv. in 5. 


Bib. an. 1579. 


Mai-tin. If Calvin affirm that ano evKa^eias cannot signify propter 
reverentiam, because anb is not so used, and Beza avoweth the same 
more earnestly, and the English bible translateth accordingly, (which may 
be confuted by infinite examples in the scripture itself, and is confuted 
by Illyricus the Lutheran;) is it not a sign either of passing ignorance, 
or of most wilful coiTuption, to maintain the blasphemy that hereupon 
they conclude ? See chap. vii. numb. 42, 43. 

Fulke. If Beza, Calvm, and the English translations be 
deceived about the use of the preposition cltto, it proveth 


not that they are deceived in the translation of the word 
evXafSeia^; which is the matter in question. They have 
other reasons to defend it, than the use of the preposition, 
although you slander Calvin in saying he affirmeth that dwo 
is not used for propter, For he saith no more, but that the 
preposition is ctTro not vrrep, or some such like, that may 
design a cause, quce causam designet; that is, that certainly 
may point out a cause, and cannot otherwise be taken. 
Likewise Beza saith, Atqui non facile mihi persuaserim, 
proferri posse ullum exemplmn in quo diro ita usurpetur: 
'But I cannot easily persuade myself, that any example may 
be brought forth, in which diro is so used,' that is, for propter, 
or secundum, for wliich hid, Kara, or virep were more proper 
and usual. Now, if Illyricus have helped you with a few . 
examples where diro is so taken, what say Beza or Calvin 
against it, but that it doth not usually and certainly sig- 
nify so ? Their judgment upon the place remaineth still 
grounded upon other arguments, although that reason of 
the acception of diro be not so strong, as if diro had never 
been so taken. But as for the blasphemy, you say, they con- 
clude upon that place, [it] will redound upon your own neck; 
for their exposition is honourable and glorious to God the 
Father, and Christ his Son, and to the Holy Ghost, by 
whom that epistle was indited, to the confusion of your 
popish blasphemies, of the sacrifice propitiatory offered in 
the mass. 

Martin. If Beza in the self-same place contend, that fiXa^eia IVIartin, 

doth not signify reverence or piety, but such a fear as hath horror and 

astonishment of mind ; and in another place saith of the self-same word 

clean contrary ; what is it but of purpose .to uphold the said blasphemy ? 

See chap. vii. numb. 39, 40. 

Fidke. Beza in the same place doth bring manv Fulke, 
examples to prove, that the Greek word evXaf^eia doth 
signify a great fear, and so is to be taken Heb. v. [7.] But 
it is an impudent lie to say, he doth contend that it never 
signifieth reverence or piety : and therefore that he saith 
it signifieth piety in another place, is nothing contrary to 
that he spake in this place ; for the word signifieth both, as 
no man that will profess any knowledge in the Greek 
tongue can deny. 





Aclsii. 23. 

Martin. If he translate for God's foreknowledge^, God's providence; 

for soul, carcase; for hell, grave^: to what end is this, but for certain 

, „ heretical conclusions ? And if upon admonition he alter his translation 

ibid:27.' ' for shame, and yet protesteth that he understandeth it as he did before; 

did he not translate before wilfully according to his obstinate opinion? 

See chap. vii. 

Annotat. in 
No. Test, 
post. edit. 


Fulke. Beza doth indeed translate irpoyvwaei provi- 
dentia ; but he expoundeth himself in his annotation : id est, 
ceterna cognitione. For what heretical conclusion he should 
so do, you do not express, neither can I imagine. To 
your other quarrels, of soid and carcase, hell and grave, I 
have said enough in answer to your preface. Sects. 46 
and 47. 

Acts ii. 27. 


Martin. If to this pui*pose he avouch that slteol signifieth nothing 
else in Hebrew but a grave, whereas all Hebricians know that it is the 
most proper and usual word in the scriptures for hell, as the other word 
keher is for a grave ; who would think he would so endanger his esti- 
mation in the Hebrew tongue, but that an heretical purpose against 
Christ's decending into hell blinded him ? See chap, vii. 

Fulke. Nay, rather all learned Hebricians know, that 
sheol is more proper for the grave, than for hell; and that 
the Hebrews have no word proper for hell, as we take 
hell, for the place of punishment of the ungodly, but either 
they use figuratively slieol, or more certainly topheth, or 
gehinnom. For sheol is in no place so necessarily to be 
taken for hell, but that it may also be taken for tlie grave. 
That keher signifieth the grave, it is no proof that sheol doth 
not signify the same; and therefore you shew yourself to 
be too young an Hebrician, to carp at Beza's estimation in 
the knowledge of the tongue. 


Martin. And if all the English bibles translate accordingly, to wit, 
for hell grave, wheresoever the sciipture may mean any lower place 
that is not the hell of the damned ; and where it must needs signify that 

p Trpoyvaxrei rov Qeov e/cSoroi/. Acts ii. 23. " Praescientia Dei traditum." 
Vulgate. " Providentia Dei deditum." Beza. All the English versions 
have foreknowledge, except the Rhemish, which has prescience.'] 

P The versions of Wiclif, Tyndale, Cranmer, and of James, all 
render "'s atov hell; the only ones having grave, being the Genevan 
Versions of 1557 and 1560. 

"Quoniam non derelinques animam meam in inferno." Vulg. 
"Cadaver meum in sepulcro." Beza. Acts ii. 27.] 


hell, there they never avoid so to translate it ; is it not an evident argu- 
ment, that they know very well the proper signification, but of purpose 
they will never use it to their disadvantage in the questions of limbus, 
purgatory, Christ's descending into hell ? chap. vii. 

Fulke. I have said before, there is no place in the Old Fulke, 
Testament, where sheol must needs signify that hell, in * 
which are the damned, but the place may be reasonably and 
truly translated the grave : although, as in divers places 
by death is meant eternal death, so by grave is meant 
hell, or danmation. Concerning the questions of limbus, 
purgatory, and the descending of Christ into hell, they are 
nothing like : for the last is an article of our faith, which 
we do constantly believe in the true understanding thereof; 
but the other are fables and inventions of men, which have- 
no ground, in the scripture, but only a vain surmise, builded 
upon a wrong interpretation of the words of the scripture, 
as in the pecuHar places shall be plainly declared. 

Martin. If further yet in this kind of controversy, Beza would be Martin, 
bold to affiiin (for so he saith), if the grammarians would give him leave, 
that chebel with five points signifieth funem, no less than chehel with six Acts a! 24. 
points ; is he not wonderfully set to maintain his opinion, that will /^H 
change the nature of words, if he might, for his purpose ? ^^1 

Fulke. Wonderfully, I promise you ; for he translateth wouw trans- 

late solutis 

the word for aU this, dolorihus, and sayeth. Nihil tamen funibus mor- 

' e/ ' tis, not, solu- 

ausus sum mutare ex conjectura: "Yet I durst change no- [j^^^^o^onbus 
thing upon conjecture." Annotat. in Acts ii. 24^. You say, he Fulke, 
would change the nature of words, Notliing so ; but if the ^4. 
word might bear that signification, he thinketh it more 
agreeable to the Hebrew phrase, which the evangelist doth 
often follow. Is not this a great riiatter to make an evident 
mark of corruption? 

Martin. If passives must be turned into actives, and actives into Martin, 
passives, participles disagree in case from theu* substantives, or rather be 
plucked and separated from their true substantives, solecisms imagined, 
where the construction is most agreeable, errors devised to creep out of 
the margin, and such like ; who would so presume in the text of holy 
scriptures, to have all gi'ammar, and words, and phrases, and construc- 
tions at his commandment, but Beza and his like, for the advantage of 

[^ " Quem Deus suscitavit solutis dolorihus mortis." Beza. " Quern 
Deus suscitavit solutis dolorihus infemi." Acts ii. 24. Vulg.] 

r 1 ^ 

[fulke. J 




their cause ? 
this chapter. 

See chap. v. numb. 6, and the numbers next following in 




Acts iii. 21. 

Pag. 43. 



Fulke. But if all these be proved to be vain cavils 
and frivolous quarrels, as in the chap. v. numb. 6. and in the 
numbers following in this chapter it shall be plainly declared, 
then I hope aU men of mean capacity and indifferent judg- 
ment will confess, that ignorance hath deceived you, malice 
hath bhnded you, hatred of the truth hath overthrown you, 
the father of hes and slanders hath possessed you. 

Martin. For example, St Peter saith, " Heaven must receive Christ." 
He translateth, "Christ must be containesi in heaven," which Calvin 
himself misliketh, the Geneva English bible is afraid to follow, Illyricus 
the Lutheran reprehendeth : and yet M. Whitakers taketh the advantage 
of this translation, to prove that Christ's natural body is so contained in 
heaven, that it cannot be upon the altar. For he knew that this was his 
master's purpose and intent in so translating. This it is, when the blind 
follow the blind, yea, rather, when they see and will be blind : for certain 
it is (and I appeal to their greatest Grecians) that howsoever it be taken 
for good in their divinity, it wiU be esteemed most false in their Greek 
schools, both of Oxford and Cambridge ; and howsoever they may pre- 
sume to translate the holy scriptures after this sort, surely no man, no 
not themselves, would so translate Demosthenes, for saving their credit 
and estimation in the Greek tongue. See chap. xvii. numb. 7, 8, 9. 

Fulke. Beza translateth quem oportet ccelo capi, Acts 
iii. 21. You say, "Heaven must receive Christ:" Beza 
saith, "Christ must be received of heaven." CaU you this 
turning of actives into passives, and passives into actives ? Or 
will you deny us the resolution of passives into actives, or 
actives into passives? What difference is there in sense 
between these propositions? Your purse containeth money, 
and money is contained in your purse : the chm^ch must 
receive aU Christians, or all Christians must be received of 
the church. But Calvin, you say, misliketh this translation, 

Qi Kai anocTTeiKj] tov TrpoKfXfi-pi-criJ.fvov vfuv 'irja-ovv Xpia-rov, ov Sfi 
ovpavbv fiev Be^acrdai, a^pi ;(poi'a)J' aTTOKaracTTacrews Travraiv. ActS iu. 
20, 21. 

" Et miserit eum qui praedicatus est vobis, Jesum Christum. Quem 
oportet quidem coelum recipere usque in tempora restitutionis omni- 
um." Vulg. 

"Et miserit eum qui ante praedicatus est vobis, Jesum Christum. 
Quem oportet quidem coelo capi usque ad tempora restitutionis om- 
nium." Beza.] 



and the Geneva bible is afraid to follow it. Yet neither of 
them both mishketh this sense, nor can ; for it is all one with 
that which you translate, " whom heaven must receive." Cal- 
vin only saith, the Greek is ambiguous, whether heaven 
must receive Christ, or Christ must receive heaven. But 
when you grant that heaven must receive Christ, you can 
not deny for shame of the world, but Christ must be re- 
ceived of heaven : wherefore you understand neither Calvin 
nor Illyricus, who speak of the other sense, "that Christ 
must receive heaven." And Master Whitaker, not of Beza's 
translation, but of the text, and even of yom* own translation, 
may prove, that Christ's natural body is contained in heaven. 
And as for your appeal to the greatest Grecians, and the 
Greek schools both of Oxford and Cambridge, [it] is vain and 
frivolous ; for the least grammarians that be in any country 
schools are able to determine this question, whether these 
propositions be not aU one in sense and signification. Ego 
anio te, and Tu amaris a me; "I love thee," or "thou art 
loved of me." But it is strange divinity, that Christ should 
be contained in heaven. Verily, how strange soever it seem- 
eth to Gregory Martin, it was not unknown to Gregory 
Nazianzen, as good a Grecian and as great a divine as 
he is. For in Ms second sermon irepl v'lov, not far from the 
beginning, he writeth thus of our Saviour Cln-ist : ^el yap 
avTov paaiXeveiv o-'x^pi Tovoe, koI virep ovpavov ce'^O^vai 
ctXP'- XP^^'^^ airoKaTa(XTaaew<s. "For he must reign until 
then, and be received or contained of heaven until the 
times of restitution." Here you see Nazianzen^ citing 
this very place of Saint Peter, Acts iii., for the mean verb 
of active signification, doubteth not freely to use the passive 
verb in the same sense that Beza translateth the place, 
against which you declaim so tragically. And if you think 
it be such an heinous offence, to render passively in the 
same sense that which is uttered actively in the text, so 
that no man for his credit would so translate Demosthenes, 
as Beza doth Saint Luke ; I pray you, what regard had 
you of your credit and estimation ? when Matt. iv. you trans- 
late, out of Latin, Qui dcemonia hahehant, "such as were 
possest;" and Luke ii. Ut profiterentur, "to be enrolled." 

P Greg. Naz. Oratio xxxvi. Opera, edit. Lutet. Parisiis 1609, p. 

9 2 




Belike you have a privilege to do what you list, when 
other men mav not do that which is lawful. 


Pag. 34, 35. 
D. Sand. 
Rocke, pag. 

See Comm. 
Bud. Figu- 
rata con- 
structio, or 


Martin. But yet there is worse stuff behind : to wit, the famous 
place Luke xxii., where Beza translateth thus, Hoc poculum novum tes- 
tamentum per meum sanguinem, qui pro vobis funditur^ : whereas in the 
Greek, in all copies without exception, he confesseth that in true gram- 
matical construction it must needs be said, quod pro vobis funditur ; and 
therefore he saith it is either a plain soloRcophanes (and according to 
that presumption he boldly translateth), or a corruption crept out of the 
margin into the text. And as for the word solaecophanes, we understand 
liim that he meaneth a plain solecism and fault in grammar, and so 
doth M. Whitakers : but M. Fulke saith, that he meaneth no such thing, 
but that it is an elegancy and figurative speech, used of most eloquent 
authors ; and it is a world to see, and a Grecian must needs smile at his 
devices, striving to make St Luke's speech here, as he construeth the 
words, an elegancy in the Greek tongue. He sendeth us first to Budee's 
commentaries, where there are examples of solaecophanes : and, indeed, 
Budee taketh the word for that which may seem a solecism, and yet is 
an elegancy, and all his examples are of most fine and figurative phrases, 
but, alas ! how unlike to that in St Luke ! And here M. Fulke was very 
foully deceived, thinking that Beza and Budee took the word in one 
sense : and so taking his mark amiss, as it were a counter for gold, where 
he found soloecophanes in Budee, there he thought all was like to St 
Luke's sentence, and that which Beza meant to be a plain solecism, he 
maketh it like to Budee's elegancies. Much like to those good searchers 
in Oxford (as it is said, masters of arts,) who, having to seek for papistical 
books in a lawyer's study, and seeing there books with red letters, cried 
out. Mass books. Mass books: whereas it was the code or some other 
book of the civil or canon law. 


Fulke. This must needs be a famous place for the 
real presence of Christ's blood in the sacrament, that never 
one of the ancient or late writers observed, until within these 
few years. But let us see what fault Beza hath com- 
mitted in translation. The last word in the verse, to e/c^v- 
vo/jLevov, he hath so translated, as it must be referred to 
the word tw aifxan, signifying blood, with which in case it 
doth not agree. That is true ; but that he confesseth that 
all Greek copies without exception have it as it is com- 
monly read, it is false : only he saith, Omnes tamen ve- 

[} Beza's words are, "Hoc poculum est novum illud testamentum 
per sanguinem meum, qui pro vobis cffunditur." Edit. 1556 and 


tusti nostri codices ita scriptum habebant. "All our old 
Greek copies had it so written." He speaketh only of his 
own, or such as he had, and not of all without exception; for 
since he wrote this note, there came to his hands one other 
ancient copy, both of Greek and Latin, in which this whole 
verse of the second deUvery of the cup is clean left out. 
For immediately after these words, tovto ecrri to (rwfxd 
fxou, 7rX>)i/ iSov t] ^etjO doth follow ; and so in the Latin, Ve- 
runtamen ecce manus qui tradet me, &c. Moreover, Beza 
telleth you, that Basil in his Ethicks, 6p. kol. citing tliis whole 
text of St Luke, readeth, t^ virep vfxwv eK')(vvoiJ.evM in the 
dative case, agreeing with t^ aifxan, the word next before. 
By wliich it is manifest, that in S. Basil's time the read- 
ing was otherwise than now it is in most copies. Again, 
where you say, he confesseth that in true grammatical con- 
struction it must needs be said, Qiiod pro vohis funditur, 
his words are not so ; but that those words, if we look to 
the construction, cannot be referred to the blood, but to 
the cup, which in effect is as much as you say ; ' His judg- 
ment indeed is of these words, as they are now read, that 
either it is a manifest soloecophanes, or else an addition 
out of the margin into the text; and as for the word 
soloecophanes, you understand him that he meaneth a plain 
solecism and fault in grammar, and so doth M. Whitakers.' 
How you understand him, it is not material, but how he 
is to be understood indeed. M. Wliitakers, whom you call 
to witness, doth not so understand him, but sheweth that if 
he had called it a plam solecism, he had not charged 
St Luke with a worse fault than Jerome chargeth St Paul. 
But what reason is there that you or any man should under- 
stand Beza, by soloecophanes, to mean a plain solecism? 
Tliink you he is so ignorant, that he knoweth not the dif- 
ference of the one from the other? or so neghgent of liis 
terms, that he would confoimd those whom he knoweth so 
much to differ ? " But Master Fulke (say you) saith that 
he meaneth no such thing, but that it is an elegancy and 
figurative speech, used of most eloquent authors : and it is a 
world to see, and a Grecian must needs smile at his devices, 
striving to make St Luke's speech here, as he construeth 
the words, an elegancy in the Greek tongue." Thus you 
write ; but if I give not all Grecians and Latinists just oc- 


casion, before I have done with you, to laugh at your proud 
ignorance, and to spit at your malicious falsehood, let me 
never have credit, I say not of a Grecian or learned man, 
which I desire not, but not so much as of a reasonable crea- 
ture. Ah, sir! and doth M. Fulke say, that this speech of 
St Luke is an elegancy in the Greek tongue ? I pray you, 
where saith he so ? You answer me quickly, " Against 
D. Saunder's Rock, p. 308^." I tremble to hear what words 
you have there to charge me withal. Indeed in that page I 
begin to speak of that matter against Saunder, who chargeth 
Beza as you do, and moreover affirmeth that Beza should teach 
that St Luke wrote false Greek, because he saith, that here is 
a manifest soloecophanes. But that neither you shall quar- 
rel, that I choose some piece of my saying for my pur- 
pose, nor any man doubt how honestly you charge me, I will 
here repeat whatsoever I have written touching that matter 
in the place by you quoted : 

" But the protestants do not only make themselves judges 
of the whole books, but also over the very letter (saith he) 
of Christ's gospel, finding fault with the construction of the 
evangehsts, and bring the text itself in doubt. Example 
hereof he bringeth Beza in his annotations upon Luke xxii., 
of the words, ' This cup is the new testament in my blood 
which is shed for you.' In wliich text, because the word 
blood in the Greek is the dative case, the other word that 
followeth is the nominative case, Beza supposeth that St Luke 
useth a figure called soloecophanes, which is appearance of 
incongruity ; or else that the last word, ' wliich is shed for 
you,' might by error of writers, being first set in the margin 
out of Matthew and Mark, be removed into the text. Here- 
upon M. Saunder, out of all order and measure, raileth 
upon Beza and all protestants. But I pray you, good sir, 
shall the only opinion of Beza, and that but a doubtful 
opinion, indict all the protestants in the world of such liigh 
treason against the word of God? For what gaineth Beza 
by this interpretation? Forsooth, the Greek text is con- 
trary to his sacramentary heresy. For thus he should trans- 

P In Fulke's work, entitled "A retentive to stay good Christians 
in true faith and religiop, against the motives of Richard Bristow. 
Also, the Discoverie of the daungerous Rocke of the Popish Church, 
Commended by Nicholas Saunder, D. of Divinitie. London, 1580."] 


late it : " This cup is the new testament in my blood, which 
cup is shed for you." Not the cup of gold or silver (saith 
he), but the hquor in that cup, which is not wine, because 
wine was not shed for us, but the blood of Christ. Why, 
then the sense is this: This blood in the cup which is 
shed for you, is the new testament in my blood. What 
sense in the world can these words have? By which it is 
manifest, that the words ' which is shed for you', cannot 
be referred to the cup, but to his blood. For the cup was 
the new testament in his blood, which was shed for us ; 
which sense no man can deny, but he that will deny the 
manifest word of God. Neither doth the vulgar Latin trans- 
lation give any other sense, although M. Saunder is not 
ashamed to say it doth. The vulgar Latin text is this : 
Hie est calix novum testamentiim in sanguine meo, qui pro 
vohis fundetur. What grammarian, in construing, would re- 
fer qui to calix, and not rather to sanguine ? Again, Erasmus 
translateth it even as Beza : Hoc poculum novum testa- 
mentum per sanguinem meum, qui pro vohis effunditur. 
Now, touching the conjecture of Beza, that those words by 
error of the scrivener might be removed from the margin 
into the text, [it] is a thing that sometime hath happened, as 
most learned men agree, in Matthew xxvii., where the name 
of Jeremy is placed in the text for that which is in Zachary, 
and yet neither of the^ prophets was named by the evangehst, 
as in most ancient records it is testified. The lilce hath 
been in the first of Mark, where the name of Esay is set in 
some Greek copies, and followed in your vulgar translation, 
for that wliich is cited out of Malachi ; which name was not 
set down by the evangehst, but added by some imskilful 
writer, and is reproved by other Greek copies. But this 
place, you say, is not otherwise found in any old copy, as 
Beza confesseth : then remaineth the second opinion, that St 
Luke in this place useth solmcophanes, which is an appear- 
ance of incongruity, and yet no incongruity. Wherein I 
cannot marvel more at your mahce, M. Saunder, than at your 
ignorance, which put no diiFerence between soloscismus and 
soloecophanes ; but even as spitefully as unlearnedly you 
affirm that Beza should teach that St Luke wrote false 
Greek, whereas soloecophanes is a figure used of the most 
eloquent writers that ever took pen in hand, even Cicero, 


Demosthenes, Greek and Latin, profane and divine, and 
even of St Luke himself in other places, whereof for ex- 
amples I refer you to Bud^eus upon the word solcecophanes. 
The appearance of incongruity is, that it seemeth, that to 
eK-)(^uv6fxevov, which is the nominative case, should agree with 
Tw a'luaTi, which is the dative case ; whereas indeed to is 
used as a relative for o, as it is often, and the verb kaTi, 
which wanteth, is understood, as it is commonly in the Greek 
tongue ; and so the translation must be. Hoc poculum no- 
vwn testamentum est in sanguine meo, qui pro vobis effun- 
ditur, or effusus est. So that this is notliing else but an im- 
pudent and unskilful quarrelling against Beza, whereas you 
papists defend against the manifest institution of the cup, 
and the practice of the primitive church, the communion in 
one kind of bread only. Cone. Const. Sess. xiii. 21." 

Where find you that I afiirm St Luke's speech here to 
be an elegancy in the Greek tongue? yea, or solcecophanes 
to be nothing else but an elegancy and figurative speech? 
A figure indeed I say that it is ; but are all figures ele- 
gancies, or all figurative speeches elegancies of speech ? 
Some figiu-es, I trow, serve to excuse simihtudes of faults in 
speech. But I say solcecophanes is used of the most eloquent 
writers. Very well ; doth it thereof follow that it is always 
an elegancy ? Have not the most elegant authors used hyper- 
batons, perissologies, and other figures that are counted faults 
of speech, and not elegancies and fine speeches ? But " all the 
examples of Budee, you say, to whose commentaries I send 
you, are of most fine and figurative phrases." If they be 
such, they do the better prove that for which I called him 
to warrantize, namely, that solcecophanes is not a solecism, 
or false Greek, wherewith Saunder accuseth Beza to charge 
St Luke. But where you utter your foohsh pity, in saying, 
Alas, how unhke they are to that in St Luke ! I think 
the case is not so clear as you make it ; for I suppose those 
examples that he bringeth of the figure of the whole con- 
struction changed after a long hyperhaton, or parenthesis, 
may well be taken for figiu-ative speeches, but not for ele- 
gancies and fine figurative phrases : as again, those popular 
sayings which, being taken out of the common people's speech, 
Budseus saith, the most eloquent orators have translated into 
their finest writings. Peradventure, as musicians use some- 


time a discord to set forth the harmony of concord, so they 
by hardly avoiding of a solecism would shew the grace of 
congriiity and elegancy. But of this whole matter let the 
judgment be with them that are learned and eloquent in 
both the tono-ues. It is sufficient for me that he which useth 
soloecophanes in Greek committeth not a solecism, or speaketh 
false Greek, as Saunder termeth it. But where you say, 
that " Master FuLke was foully deceived and took his marks 
amiss, as it were a coimter for gold, to tliink that Beza 
and Budee took the word in one sense," you say your plea- 
sure, but you shall well know, that Master Fulke is not so 
young a babe, to take a counter for gold, as you are a bold ' 
bayard, to pronounce of aU men's meanings what you list. 
For how are you able to prove, that Beza by soloecophanes 
meaneth a plain solecism ? Think you that Beza is so simple 
a child also, to term copper by the name of gold? If ha 
had meant a solecism, could he not have said so ? But 
you must play Procrustes' part ; for neither my saying nor 
Beza's meaning were large enough for you, to frame your 
slanderous cavil against the truth, and therefore with a loud 
lie you must lengthen my saying, and with proud and false 
presumption you must stretch out his meaning. These be 
your arts, tliis is your eloquence, these are the sinews of 
your accusations. Wliat " those good searchers in Oxford " 
were, which, being masters of arts, could not discern between 
mass books, and law books, for my part I never heard ; but 
I think it to be a matter of as good credit as that you report 
of me and Beza. 

Martin. This was lack of judgment in M. Fulke at the least, and RlAnriN, 
no great sign of skill in Greek phrases ; and he must no more call D. 
Saunders unlearned for not imderstanding Beza's meaning, but himself, 
who indeed understood him not. For if Beza meant that it was an 
elegancy used of the finest authors, and such as Budee doth exemplify of, 
why doth he say, " that he seeth not why Luke should use soloecophanes," 
but thinketh rather, it is a corruption crept into the margin ? Tell us, 
M. Fulke, we beseech you, whether is the better and honester defence, 
to say, that it is an elegancy and fine phrase in St Luke, or to say, that 
it is a fault in the text, it came out of the margin, the gospel is here 
corrupted ? Think you Beza such a fool, that he Avould rather stand 
upon this latter, if he might have used the former, and had so meant by 
solcecophanes ? Yea, what needed any defence at all, if it had been an 
usual and known elegancy, as you would prove it ? 


FuLKE, Fulke. I had rather it should be counted want of 

judgment in me, so it were by a man of judgment, than to 
be taken so often with falsification and lack of truth. For 
my skill in Greek phrases, although I never professed any, 
yet I see nothing brought by you to change my opinion of 
Saunder's unlearned slander, in railing against Beza, for say- 
ing that St Luke should write false Greek. And if solmco- 
phanes do differ as much from solcecismus, as gold doth from 
copper, as you seem to say, when you write that I take a 
counter for gold, I might tliink myself very unlearned in- 
deed, if I did understand Beza speakmg of soloecophanes, 
as though he spake of solcecismus. But you demand why 
Beza saith, that he seeth not why St Luke should use 
soloecophanes, if he meant that it was an elegancy used of 
the finest authors. Still you thrust in your he in every 
corner : who saith he meant it was an elegancy ? Beza saith, 
he seeth no cause why St Luke should use soloecophanes, 
that is, depart from the usual and ordinary construction ; 
and therefore passeth to another conjecture. But you speak 
me fair to tell you, " whether is the better and honester 
defence, to say that it is an elegancy and fine phrase, or 
to say it is a fault in the text, it came out of the margin, 
the gospel is here corrupted." First, I answer you, that Beza 
affirmeth neither, but rather translateth as BasU did read. 
Secondly, I say, there is no dishonesty in either of both 
conjectures ; for this soloecophanes, though it be no elegancy, 
yet may be defended from solecism, or false Greek. And 
certain it is that some words have crept out of the margin 
into the text, as the name of Jeremy in all copies that are 
extant. Matt, xxvii., and of Esay in many, Mark i. And 
yet we say not the gospel is corrupted ; which foul phrase it 
seemeth you have great pleasure in, notwithstanding you 
yom\self out of Lindanus charge all the Greek copies of 
the Epistle to the Corinthians to be corrupted by Marcion, 
the mischievous mouse of Pontus. You ask further, whether 
I " thinli Beza such a fool to stand rather upon the latter, 
if he might have used the former, and had so meant by 
soloecophanes ? " Nay, rather, think you Beza such a fool, 
that he would mean a plain solecism, and call it only an 
appearance of solecism? What he rather stood upon, his 
translation doth best shew, wliich is both with St Basil's 


reading, and with the appearance of incongruity, which is 
none in deed. " Yea, what needed any defence at all," say 
you, "if it had been an usual and known elegancy?" So 
well you love a He when you have made it, that you can 
never leave it until you have worn it all to nought. Now 
you have it, not only an elegancy, but an usual and known 
elegancy. Verily, I never said it was an elegancy, as my 
words are plain to be read of every man, and much less that 
it was an usual and known elegancy. Only I say it is usual 
and common in the Greek tongue, that the prepositive article 
is used for the relative ; and so much in the next section you 
yourself do grant me : and as for defence you talk of, I " 
see none needful, except it be for that tliis phrase here 
used of St Luke is lawful, though it be not so common 
as the ordinary construction. 

Martin. For you say further, that to is taken for o, and eVrt is Martuj, 
understood, and that this is a common thing in the best Greek authors ; 39. 
but you must add, that the said relative must always be referred to the 
antecedent of the same case, as this speech, ro noTTjpiov to eKxwofievov 
may be resolved thus, to Trorqpiop 6 iKxvv6fiev6v ia-n, or rather o €k- 
Xyverai : but that ev rw aipLari [xov, to eK^yvoyievov, may be resolved, o i<- 
Xvvofievov €(TTi, you shall never be able to bring one example ; and you 
wilfully abuse vrhatsoever knowledge you have of the Greek tongue to 
deceive the ignorant, or else you have no skill at all, that speak so 
barbarously and rustically of Greek elegancies. For if you have skill, 
you know in your conscience, that ev t« e'fia olfiaTi. to vnep vp.a)v eKxv- 
vofievov is as gi-eat a solecism in Greek, and no more elegancy, than 
to say in Latin, In meo sanguine fusus pro vobis, which in the school 
deserveth whipping. And yet you ask very vehemently concerning 
these words. Hie calix novum testamentum in meo sanguine qui pro vobis 
fundetur, what mean grammarian would refer qui to calix, and not to 
sanguis ? I answer that a mere Latinist, for ignorance of the Greek 
tongue, would refer it rather as you say : but he that knoweth the 
Greek, as you seem to do, though he be a very young gi-ammarian, will 
easily see it cannot be so referred : as in the like, Acts xiv., Sacerdos quoque s lepevs 
Jovis qui erat ante civitatem eorum. Here qui is ambiguous, but in the '^°'i ^"'^ 
Greek we see that qui must be referred to Jovis, and cannot be referred 
to Sacerdos. 

Fulke. First, I take that you grant me, that it is a Fulke,' 
common thing in the Greek tongue, that the article pre- ^" 
positive is taken for the subjunctive, and the verb substan- 
tive may be understood where it is not expressed ; which if 


you would not have granted, might have been extorted from 
you by confession of all Grecians and Greek writers. Se- 
condly, where you teach me a general rule, to add to the 
former concession, that the said relative must always be re- 
ferred to the antecedent of the same case, as in the example 
you bring, to TroTtjpiov to eK-)^vv6fxevov, you shall pardon 
me to learn of you. I take you for no such Aristarchus, 
that you have power to make new rules in the Greek gram- 
mar, and such as shall control not only Homer, but all 
good authors that ever did write in that language, of sole- 
cism and incongruity. For if the relative must always be 
referred to the antecedent of the same case, to agree with 
it in case, or else it is false Greek, I will abide by it, 
there is no Greek author whose works are extant, but he 
hath committed solecism. The examples that hereof might 
be brought out of every several writer, if they were heaped 
together, would make a book as big as Ilias. But in this 
so clear a case to cite any examples, I see not to what 
purpose it should be, unless it were to make httle children, 
that learn tvtttw in the grammar schools, to be witnesses 
of your intolerable arrogancy and incredible ignorance. 
One example I will bring you out of St Mark, not luilike 
this of St Luke, but that the verb eaTi is expressed : /cat 
(pepovcxiv avTov eiri yoXyoOd tottov, o ecxTi ixeOepixrjvevo- 
nevov KpavLov tottos, " and they bring him to the place Gol- 
gotha, which is, being interpreted. The place of sculls." This 
example is more than sufficient for so plain a matter. For 
although it be an elegancy for the relative to agree in case 
with the antecedent sometimes, yet to make a perpetual rule 
thereof it proceedeth of too much rashness, want of know- 
ledge and consideration. But I " shall never be able to bring 
one example " like to this of St Luke, where, the relative not 
agreeing in case with the antecedent, the participle may be 
resolved by the verb substantive that is not expressed ; and 
I " wilfully abuse whatsoever knowledge I have of the Greek 
tongue, to deceive the ignorant, or else I have no skill at 
all, to speak so barbarously and rustically of Greek ele- 
gancies, and I know in my conscience, it is as great a 
solecism in Greek, and no more elegancy, than to say in 
Latin, In meo sanguine fusus pro vohis, which in the school 
deserveth whipping :" and I know not what beside. But 


touching the similitude of the solecisms, if you had made 
your example ahke, that is, put in the relative in the Latin, 
as it is in the Greek, In meo sanguine qui fiisus pro vohis, 
there is no more solecism in the one than in the other. 
But all this wliile I bring no example, and you urge an 
example, yea, so extremely, that you say confidently, I shall 
never be able to bring one : but what if I bring two or 
three ? who then abuseth his knowledge in the Greek ? 
who hath no skill at all ? who deserveth whipping ? 
Have you so read all authors, and bear them and all their 
phrases so well m mind, that you dare before all the world 
avouch, that I shall never be able to bring one example? 
But to let all the world see your vanity, I will begin with 
Theognis, who in the 863rd of his Elegiac Sentences writeth 
thus : 

noXXoi? a.xp^(Troi<Ti 6ebs StSoZ avhpaa-iv ok^ov 
''EaGXov, OS oijff avrd) jSeXrepos ov8ei> iwv, 
Ovre (f)ikots. ' 

See you here the relative os, bemg the nominative case, not 
agreeing with his antecedent, ok^ov, of the accusative case, 
but coming before the verb ecrri, that is included in the 
participle ewi/? Wliat can you here say? wiU you cavil at 
the subjunctive article ? Then read a few verses after, and 
see whether tliis poet useth not as indifferently the preposi- 
tive article as the subjunctive for the relative. 

nil' oivov Tov ffJirjs Kopv(^rjs cmb Tavyeroio 
' AjJLTrekoi TjveyKav, ras eCpvTevtr 6 yepav. 

And within two verses, 

Tov nivcov cmb p.ev xakenas (TKedacrets pLfXeBcovas, 

speaking of the same wine. . 
Also, Theocritus, in 24th Idyll : 

OvXopevois 6(f)i€(rcn, ra Koi 6eo\ i-}(6a'ipovTi. 

And in the 23rd Idyll: 

Kal ttotI tov 6eov Tjvde rov {impure. 

From Theocritus let us pass to Hesiodus, out of whom 
it were over tedious to cite how often he useth the article 
prepositive for the relative, and not agreeing in case with 
the antecedent : but an example or two shall serve, where 
the verb substantive is understood, and not expressed, nor 


any other verb to govern the relative, yet not agreeing in 
case with the antecedent : 

Kpi^vqs T devaov Koi anoppvTov, i] t ddokcoTos. 

Again, in "Epy. 'R/jl^P' 

Olcovovs Kpivas oi eV epy/xari tovtco apurroi. 

Here, raethinks, I hear you grudge against poetry and 
poetical licence, as doubtless you Avould quarrel against pro- 
fane authorities, if I should bring you any like examples 
out of prosaical writers. 

We must see therefore, whether we are not able to 
bring examples of the like phrase out of the holy scriptures. 
First, that soloecophanes is foimd in St Luke, I will refer 
you to the first cap, of his gospel, ver. 74, and cap. vi. ver. 4 ; 
likewise, Acts xxvii. 3, and Acts xiii. 6. But for the like 
soloecophanes to tliis in question, Luke xxii., I will send 
you first to St Paul, Col. i. 25. TrXrjpwaai tov Xoyov 
Tov kdenv, to ixvaTYjpiov to airoKeKpvufxevov utto twv 
a'lwvwv Kai utto toov yevewv, vvv\ oe €(pavepu}6r] toi^ ayioi^ 
avTou. In this verse to nvcxTripiov must needs be the ac- 
cusative case, as tov Xoyov is, by apposition : then is to 
aTTOKeKpufxiuLevov for all the world as to cK-^vvofxevoVy the 
nominative case, signifying Quod ahsconditum fuit, which the 
latter part of the verse, vvvl Se ecpavepwOri, doth most plainly 
declare : for what else should be the nommative case to 
the verb ectavepwOr} ? And even so your vulgar Latin text 
hath it translated : JSt impleam verbum Dei, mysterium 
quod ahsconditum fuit a sceculis et generationihus, nunc 
autem mwiifestatum est Sanctis ejus^ But because this is 
not so evident, for that the nominative case and the accu- 
sative of the neuter gender be of one termination, I will 
bring you yet more plain examples out of the Revelation 
of St John, chap. i. 4. •^api's vfxlv koi e'lpr^vri otto tov 
6 wi/, Koi o ^v, Kal 6 epy^ofievos. " Grace to you, and peace 
from him (or from God, as some copies have) wliich is, and 
which was, and which is to come." Would not your grammar 
say it is a plain solecism, because he saitli not, tou oi'to?, 
and ToD epj^ofxevov ? What have you here to quarrel ? Is 
not a-TTo TOV 6 (vv and 6 €p')^6fxevos the same phrase that 
is in Luke, tm ainaTi, to eK-^vvonevov'? Well, let us go 


a little further, to the next verse of the same chapter, where 
we read thus : Kai ctTro 'Iriaov X-picrrov, o /maprvs o Trtaros, 
o Ti pwTOTOKo^ eK Twv veKpwv, Kai o apywv twv fiaaiXecov 
T^9 7^9. " And from Jesus Christ, which is a faithful wit- 
ness, the first-born from the dead, and prince over the kings 
of the earth." The more usual construction would require 
that he should have said, airo lijcrov KpiaTov tov nxaprvpo^ 
Tov TTiaTou, TOV TTpoTOTOKov Ktti TOV apyovTo<i, but that 
he useth the same soloecophanes which St Luke doth, chap, 
xxii. (if the reading be not altered), where the article pre- 
positive is put in the place of the subjunctive, and agreeth 
not in case with the antecedent, as often it doth, but being 
the nominative case, cometh before the verb eart, which is 
not expressed, but must needs be understood ; as even your 
vulgar translator doth acknowledge, rendering it in both 
verses thus : ab eo qui est, et qui erat, et qui venturus est, 
and a Jesu Christo qui est testis fidelis, S^c. These exam- 
ples, I doubt not but they are sufiicient to satisfy any rea- 
sonable man, to shew that I have not invented a new 
construction that never was heard of, to save Beza's credit, 
and whereof I am able to give not so much as one example. 
But that I may overthrow M. Martin's vain insultation 
with a whole cloud of examples, I will yet add one or two 
more. In the same Revelation, chap. viii. 9, thus we read : koI 
airedave to Tp'iTov twv KTianaToov tcov ev ttj OaXaaarj ra 
e^oj'Ta x^vp^cts, " and there died the third of all creatures 
which are in the sea, which had Hves." Your vulgar Latin 
text turneth it thus : £t mortua est tertia pars creaturce, 
eorum quoe habebant animas in mari : "And there died the 
tliird part of the creatures, of those things which had life 
in the sea." In which translation, although the order of the 
words which St John useth is somewhat inverted, yet the 
sense remaineth the same; and ra ep^oj/ra is translated, quce 
habebant, which agreeth not with twv KTiafxaTwv in case, 
(as every chUd that can decUne a Greek noun doth know,) 
where otherwise the most common construction were to have 
said, TWV KTiafJiaTwv, twv e-^ovTwv. Therefore the phrase 
a,nd construction is the same, which is Luke xxii.. Tip al/uaTi, 
TO eK-^vvonevov. What can fine M. Gregorie, which carpeth 
at my skill, that speak so barbarously and rustically of 
Greek elegancies, what can Master Gregorie Martin, I say, 


the great linguist of the seminary of Rheims, allege, why 
these phrases are not alike ? or rather, changing the words, 
in figure the very same ? And if he have anything to cavil 
against this example, as I see not what he can have, yet 
have I another out of the same book, chap. iii. 12 : kuI 
ypa\j/w eir avrov to opofxa tov Qeov fxov, kuI to ovoixa tj/s" 
iroXews tou Qeov fiov t^9 /catv^s lepovaaXrj/Xf ri KaTajBaivovaa 
€K TOV ovpavov airo tov Qeov fxov. "And I will write upon 
him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my 
God, the new Jerusalem, which descendeth out of heaven 
from my God." The vulgar Latin translation differeth not 
from this, which saith : Et scribam super eum nomen Dei 
met, et nomen civitatis Dei mei, novce Jerusalem, quce 
descendit de ccelo a Deo meo. Here the antecedent is of 
the genitive case, the relative of the nominative, which cometh 
before the verb eo-rt, understood in the participle KaTaf3ai- 
vovaa, as in Luke xxii. it is in the participle eK-y^vvofxevov. 

By these examples, in seeking whereof, I promise you, 
I spent no great time, you may learn to be wiser hereafter, 
and not to condemn all men, beside yourself, out of your 
reader's chair at Eheims, of ignorance, unskilfulness, bar- 
barousness, rusticity, yea, wilfulness and madness, where you 
yourself deserve a much sharper censure through your im- 
moderate insultation, the matter thereof being both more false 
and forged, than we might justly have borne, if we had 
been overtaken with a little grammatical ignorance. By 
these examples I trust you see, or if you will needs be 
bhnd, all the young Grecians in England may see, that as 
in the Latin translation you confess the relative standeth 
more likely to be referred to the word sanguine than to 
the word calix, so in the Greek there is no help to remove 
it from the next manifest and necessary antecedent to a 
word further off, with which the signification of the participle 
cannot agree. For who would say, that a cup is shed for 
us ? And though you make a metonymy of the cup for 
that which is in the cup, what is that, I pray you ? Not 
wine, you will say, I am sm'e, but the blood of Christ. If 
you so resolve it, then foUoweth that vain nugation which 
I have noted against Saunder : " This blood in the cup, 
which blood is shed for you, is the new testament in my 
blood." Is that blood in the cup diverse from that blood 



in which the now testament is confirmed ? If it be the 
same, how often was it shed ? If it were shed in the cup, 
how holdeth your unbloody sacrifice ? Or how can you 
say that it was shed in the cup, where, by your rule of 
concomitants, it is not separated from the body, as it was 
in his passion ? K it were not separated, as certainly his 
blood was not separated from liis body, in the supper, how 
can that which was in the cup, be liis blood that was shed 
for us? for the word of "shedding" signifieth separation. 
Wherefore it cannot be referred to that in the cup, but 
to his blood wliicli was shed on the cross for us ; so that 
there is a manifest enallage, or change of the tense ; the • 
present being put for the future, as it is manifest by the 
other evangelists, where the word of shedcUng can be re- 
ferred to notliing else, but to his blood shed upon the cross. 
Wherefore the Greek text can here resolve you of no am- 
biguity, as in the place you cite. Acts xiv. Neither was 
there ever any ancient writer that stumbled upon this am- 
biguity; but all with one consent refer the word of shedding 
to his blood, and not to the cup or the content thereof, 
so many as speak of it. 

Martin. And this is one commodity among others, that we reap of ixrARUN, 
the Greek text, to resolve the ambiguity that is sometime in the Latin : '^^• 
whereas you neither admit the one nor the other, but as you list ; neither 
doth the Greek satisfy you, be it never so plain and infallible, but 
you wiU devise that it is corrupted, that there is a solecism, that the 
same solecism is an elegancy, and thereupon you translate your own 
device, and not the word of God. Which whence can it proceed, but of 
most wUftil corruption? See chap. xvii. num. 10, 11, 12. 

Fulke. This is nothing but general raihng, and im- Fulke, 
pudent slandering, as in the particular sections before is 
proved. For we neither devise that the text is corrupted, 
to alter any thing of the text, no, not where it is undoubtedly 
corrupted, as in the name of Jeremy, Matt, xxvii. : neither 
devise we a solecism, when we admonish that there is 
a soloeco2)hanes\ which of no papist that ever I heard of 
was before observed : neither make we a solecism to be 
an elegancy, when we say against them that confound a 
solecism with soloecophanes, that solmcophanes is a figure 
used sometimes of most eloquent writers, neither is it straight- 

[' That which seems to be a solecism, but vet is not.] 
r 1 10 



way a vii'tue or elegancy of speech, whatsoever eloquent 
writers sometimes have used : wherefore we translate no- 
thing of our own device, but we translate the word of God 
without any wilful corruption. 

Maktin, Martin. If in ambiguous Hebrew words of doubtful signification, 

^'' where the Greek giveth one certain sense, you refuse the Greek, and 

take your advantage of the other sense; what is this but wilful par- 

Psai. cxix. tiality ? So you do in Redime eleernosynis peccata tua, Dan. iv. : and, 

Oeton. 'Nun}. , ^ . , . .^ . ., • 

Ps. cxxxix. IttcUnavi cor meum ad faciendas justtjicationes tuas propter retributionem ; 

and, Nimis honorati sunt amici tui, Deus, etc. : and yet at another time 

you follow the determination of the Greek for another advantage, as 

Psalm xcviii. "Adore his footstool, because he is holy." Whereas in the 

W'Slp Hebrew it may be as in our Latin, "because it is holy." See chap. xiii. 

vj»^ num. 18; chap. ix. num. 23, 24; chap, xviii. num. 1, 2. So you flee 

from the Hebrew to the Greek, and from this to that again, from both 

Lib. ii. cont. to the vulgar Latin, as is shewed in other places ; and as St Augustine 

Faust, cap.22. ^^\y ^q Faustus the Manichee, " You are the rule of truth : whatsoever 

is for you, is true ; whatsoever is against you, is not true." 

FuLKE Fulke. If Hebrew words be ambiguous, we take that 

41' sense which agreeth with other places that are plain and 

without all ambiguity ; and this is no partiahty, but wisdom 
and love of the truth : not to groimd any new doctrine 
upon such places only, where the Hebrew word is ambigu- 
ous, and may have divers significations ; as you do the 
redemption of sins by alms, upon that place of Daniel iv. ; 
where you confess that the Hebrew word is ambiguous, 
and are not able to bring any one plain text for it, where 
the words are not ambiguous. But we ground our refusal 
upon a hundred plain texts, that ascribe the whole glory 
of our ransom and redemption from sins to the only mercy 
of God. But as well this text as the other two, that you 
cite in the chapters by you quoted, shall be throughly 
discussed, to see if you can have any advantage at our 
translators of the same. But on the contrary side you 
say that at another time we foUow the determination of 
the Greek for another advantage, as in that text. Psalm 

P Ps. cxix. 112. i. e. in the octonary, or division of eight verses, 
which commences with the Hebrew letter 3j fiun.'] 

[" Vides certe quam nescias, vel te nescire fingas, quid sit evan- 
gelium, nee ex doctrina apostolica, sed ex vestro errore nomines evan- 
gelium. Augustin. Contra Faustum, Lib. n. 2. Opera. Vol. viii. p. 316.3 


xcviii. " Adoro his footstool, because he is holy," whereas [Psai. xcix.] 
in the 'Hebrew it may be as in your Latin, " because it is 
holy." I answer, that we follow not the determination of 
the Greek, as moved by the only authority thereof, for any 
advantage, but because we learn our interpretation out of 
the very psalm itself. For whereas the prophet in the 5th 
verse hath said, " Exalt ye the Lord om* God, and wor- 
ship at the footstool of his feet, for he is holy ;" in the last 
verse of the same he repeateth again the like exhortation : 
" Exalt ye the Lord our God, and worship him in liis holy 
hill; for the Lord our God is holy." In this verse for his 
' footstool' he placeth the 'holy lull,' which expresseth where 
his footstool was, namely the holy ark, and for cadhosh hu, ';£i\'-\p 
'holy is he,' now he sayeth, cadosh Jehova, 'holy is the Lor.d ^^^^ 
our God,' which putteth the other verse out of ambiguity. .»:^-;_-, 
Wherefore if we take testimony of the Greek, we fly not . "^ 
to the Greek from the Hebrew, but shew that the Hebrew ' t 
may so be understood, having other more certain arguments 
than the testimony of the Greek. Again, it is utterly false, 
that you say we fly from both Hebrew and Greek to the 
Latin ; for we never fly from the Hebrew, but acknowledge 
it as the fountain and spring, from whence we must re- 
ceive the infallible truth of God's word of the Old Testa- 
ment, following the Latin or Greek so far as they follow 
the truth of the Hebrew text, and no farther. As for the 
saying of St Augustine to Faustus the Manichee, " You 
are the rule of truth," [it] doth most aptly agree to you 
papists and to your pope : for you wUl not afford unto the 
scriptures themselves any authority or certainty of truth, 
but upon your approbation and interpretation. ^Vlierefore 
not only that which he saith" to Faustus the Manichee 
agreeth aptly to you, ' Whatsoever is for you is true, what- 
soever is against you is not true :' but that also which he 
reporteth Tyconius the Donatist said of his sect, Quod vo- 
lumus sanctum est, "Whatsoever we will is holy," you your- 
selves take upon you. For no doctrine is good nor holy, 
though it be proved never so plainly out of the holy scrip- 
ture, except it be allowed by you for catholic and holy. 

Martin. What shall I speak of the Hebrew particle vau ? which Martin, 
(Gen. xiv. 18.) must in no case be translated because, lest it should 



|nb Kini prove that Melchisedec offered sacrifice of bread and wine, as all the 
' fathers expound it: but (Lukei. 42) where they translate the equiva- 
lent Greek i)article Kal , there Beza proveth the said particle to signify 

Quia bene- because, and translateth accordingly, and the English Bezites likewise. 

benedietus I will not Urge them, why : we like the sense well, and Theophylact 

tristui/'^" so expoundeth it. But if the Greek copulative maybe so translated, 
why not the Hebrew copulative much inoi*e, which often in the scripture 
is used in that sense 1 See chap. xvii. num. 13, 14. 

FuLKE, Fulke. That the Hebrew particle vau is sometimes to 

be taken for a causal conjunction, and signifieth because, 
no man denieth : but that it must be taken so Gen. xiv. 
because koI is taken so Luke i. 42, what reason is this? 
But all the fathers (say you) expound Melchisedec's bring- 
ing forth of bread and wine to be a sacrifice. I grant that 
many do, but not all : yet do not they ground upon the 
conjunction causal ; for Cyprian, Lib. ii. Epist. 3, ad Ccecilium, 
readeth thus, Fuit autera sacerdos, " and he was a priest." 
So doth Hierome, Epist. ad Evagrium, expounding the very 
Hebrew text, say, Et Melchisedech rex Salem protulit por- 
nem et vinum, erat autem sacerdos Dei excelsi. The word 
protulit also hath Ambrose, de mysteriis initiand. Augus- 
tine upon the title of the 33rd Psalm, Cyprian in the 
epistle before named; and the vulgar Latin hath profercfiis. 
Hierome, Ep. ad Evagrium, sheweth that the best learned 
of the Hebrews' judgment was, that Melchisedec Victori 
Abraham obviam processerit, et in refectionem tarn ipsius, 
quam pugnatorum ipsius^, panes vinumque protulerit : " Mel- 
chisedec came forth to meet Abraham the conqueror, and for 
refection, as well of him as of his warriors, brought forth 
bread and wine." And after many interpretations of the 
Greek writers which he rehearseth, in the end he will de- 
termine nothing of his own judgment. The author of Scho- 
la^tica Historia, cap. 64, agreeth with the interpretation of 
the Hebrews. '^At vera Melchisedech rex Salem obtidit ei 

P "EvKoyrjfievTj crii iv yvvai^\, Koi evKoyrjfievos 6 Kapnos Trjs Kot\ias 
a-ov. Luke i. 42. 

"And blessed is the fruit of thy womb," Cranmer, Tyndale, Rheims, 
Authorised. " Because the fruit of thy womb is blessed," Geneva. 

P (yus. Edit. Martianay, Vol. ii. p. 66.] 

P Genesis xiv. 18. The Vulgate has, "At vero Melchisedech rex 
Salem, proferens panem et vinum." Augustine says, Et tantus erat 


panem et viniim : quod quasi exponens Joseplms ait : Mi- 
nistravit exercitui xenia, et multam abundantiam rerum 
opportunarum simul exhibuit, et super epulas benedixit 
Deimi, qui Abrahce subdiderat inimicos. Erat enim sacerdos 
Dei altissimi. "But Melchisedec, king of Salem, offered unto 
liim bread and Avine; which Josephus as it were expounding 
of it saith : ' He ministered to his army the duties of hos- 
pitality, and gave him great plenty of things necessary, and 
beside the feast, or at the feast, he blessed God, which had 
subdued unto Abraham his enemies : for he was a priest of 
the liighest God'." Therefore not all the fathers so judged 
of Melchisedec's bread and wine. But against all them 
that referred the same to his priesthood, we oppose the 
apostle to the Hebrews, chap, vii., who, searching of pur- 
pose whatsoever was in Melchisedec, wherein he resem- 
bleth Christ, so that he omitteth not the interpretation of 
his name nor of his city, maketh no mention of his sacri- 
fice of bread and wine ; whereas nothing seemeth to have 
greater resemblance than that, which deceived many of 
the ancient fathers, but yet was not observed of the Holy 

Martin. But I would ask rather, why Kexapirco^ievrj'^ may not in any IMartin, 
case be translated, " full of grace ;" whereas i^XKotfievos^ is translated, 
" full of sores ;" both words being of like form and force. See chap. Luke xvi. '20. 
xviii. num. 4, 5. 

Fulke. The former word, being a participle, is best Fulke, 
translated by a participle 'freely beloved:' for the other, if '*'^' 
we had a participle in Enghsh, to say, 'sored or botched,' 

Melchisedec, a quo benediceretur Abraham. Protulit panem et vinum, 
et benedLxit Abraham, et dedit ei decimas Abraham. Videte quid pro- 
tulit. Augustin. Enarratio in Psalmum xxxiii. cap. 5. Opera, Vol. iv. 
p. 301. 

Et Melehisedech rex Salem protulit panem et vinum. Fuit autem 
sacerdos Dei summi, et benedixit Abraham. Cypriani Epist. lxiii. 
Opera, edit. Baluzi, Paris. 1726. p. 105.] 

[■* xa'/3f. Kexapi-rcofiiVT]. Luke i. 28, "Ave, gratia plena," Vulg. 
" Hail, full of grace," Wiclif, Tyndale, Cranmer, Rheims. " Hail, thou 
that art freely beloved," Geneva. " Hail, thou that art in high favour," 
Bishops'. " Hail, thou that art highly favoured," Authorised version.] 

P OS f^f^XtjTo npbs Tov nvXcova avroi T^X/cw/xe'i/oy. Luke xvi. 20. 
"Qui jacebat ad januam ejus ulceribus plenus," Vulg. " Full of 
sores," all the Versions.] 


we would use it ; but for lack of a participle, we are con- 
strained to use the noun, 'full of sores.' I may likewise 
ask you, whether you would translate Ke')(^pvawfxevo^ fuU of 
gold, or gilded? And so of all other verbs of that form, 
where there is in English a participle : why ought not like- 
wise K€')(^apiTwix€vo^ be translated by the participle? 

Martin, Martin. Again, why say they (Heb. xiii.) "Let your conversation 

, • be without covetousness," and say not, " Let marriage be honourable 

/oos' 6 Tp6- ^^ ^^^' ^^^ the bed undefiled ;" both being expressed alike by the 
T"^: "^'V"' apostle, and by way of exhortation, as the rest that goeth before and 
o yafio^ . f^yQ^g^ij 2 See cliap. xv. num. 15. 

FuLKE, Fulke. Although the sense were not so greatly different, 

■* yet the participle ^e following in the latter part of the verse, 

7rdpvov9 ^€, &c., " but fornicators and adulterers God wUl 
judge," sheweth that the former part of the verse is an 
affirmation rather than an exhortation. Again, the purpose 
of the apostle is plain, to dissuade them from whoredom 
and adultery; and not only to exhort married men to use 
marriage temperately, but for avoiding of whoredom and 
adultery, which God will punish, to shew the remedy that 
God hath provided for man's infirmity to be honourable 
and void of filthiness. 

Martin, Martin. Are we too suspicious, think you ? How can " fear " be 

translated " that which he feared ;" " repentance," " them that repent 
»Beza, or amend their life;" "tradition," the doctrine delivered; "temples," 
sTYie^Ai^' shrines ; " idols,'' devotions ; " every human creature," all ordinances of 
andiii. man; "foreknowledge," providence; " soul," carcase ; "hell," grave; 

" altar," temple ; " table," altar ; and such like 1 

p d(pi\apyvpos 6 rporros. Heb. xiii. 5. " Sint mores sine avaritia," 
Vulg. "Let your conversation be without covetousness," Tyndale, 
Cranmer, Geneva, Bishops' Bible, Authorised version. "Let your 
manners be without avarice," Rheims.] 

P TijLtios 6 yaftos iv Traert, Ka\ 77 koItt] dfiiavTos. Heb. xiii. 4. " Ho- 
norabile connubium in omnibus, et thorns immaculatus," Vulg. 
" Let wedlock be had in price in all points, and let the chamber be 
undefiled," Tyndale. " Wedlock is to be had in honour among all men, 
and the bed undefiled," Cranmer, Geneva. " Marriage, honourable in 
all, and the bed undefiled," Rheims. " Marriage is honourable in all, 
and the bed undefiled," Authorised. "Wedlock is honourable among 
all men, and the bed undefiled," Bishops' Bible.] 


Fulke. We think you not more suspicious, than maU- Fulke, 
cious, i'From his fear," may well (for explication sake) be ^• 
translated, " from that wliich he feared^," Heb. v. 7, even as 
hope is sometime taken for that which we hope for, as 
Col. i. 5. Tit. ii. 13. So may "repentance" in Beza Acts xxvi.* 
20, signify them that repent, as "cii'cumcision" often signifieth 
them that are circumcised: neither is there any change of the 
sense, to say the fruits worthy of repentance, or the fruits 
worthy of them that repent, or amend their life. And I 
pray what doth "tradition," 2 Thess. ii. and iii. signify, but 
the doctrine dehvered^ ? Doth not the apostle declare, what 
liis tradition was, when he delivereth this doctrine, that if " 
any man will not work, let him not eat, 2 Thess. iii. 10.? 
The word vaom, as it is used, Acts xix. 24, signifieth neither 
temples nor shrines®, but certain idolatrous coins, on which 
was stamped the figure of Diana's temple, more like to your 
popish shrines than to the temple of God. Where " idols" 

[ Kai fla-aKovcrdfls dno rfjs ciXa/Sei'ay. Heb. V. 7. " Exauditus est 
pro sua reverentia," Vulg. "Exauditus esset ex inetu," Beza, 1566. 
" And was herd for his reverence," Wiclif. " Heard, because of his 
godliness," Tyndale. " Was heard, because of his reverence," Cran- 
mer, Rhemish. "And was heard in that wliich he feared," Geneva, 
Tomson's translation of Beza, Edit. Barker, 1583.] 

1^* Tois edveacp airayyiWav fieTavoelv. Acts xxvi. 20. "Annuntia- 
bam ut poenitentiam agerent," Vulgate. "Annuntiavi ut resipisce- 
rent," Beza, edit. 1566. "That they should repent," New Test., 
Englished by W. Tomson, from Beza's version, 1583.] 

[* Koi KpareiTe ras 7rapa86(reis. 2 Thess. iL 15. " Et tenete traditio- 
nes," Vulgate. "Et retinete traditam doctrinam," Beza, 1582. "Et 
tenete traditam doctrinam," Beza, 1556. "Keep the instructions which 
ye have been taught," Tomson's translation of Beza, Geneva. " Holde 
ze the tradiciouns," Wiclif. " Keep the ordinances," Tyndale, Cran- 
mer. " Hold the traditions," Rhemish, Authorised. 

Ka\ firi Kara ttjv iTapabo<nv t)v TrapeXa^e. 2 Thess. iii. 6. "Et 
non secundum traditionem," Vulgate. "Et non ex tradita doctrina," 
Beza, 1566. "And not after the techynge," Wiclif. "And not after 
the institution," Tyndale, Cranmer. *' And not after the instruction," 
Geneva, Tomson's version. "And not according to the tradition," 
Rhemish. "And not after the tradition," Authorised.] 

[^ TToiav vaovs dpyvpovs 'ApT€p,i8os. Acts xix. 24. "Faciens eedes ar- 
genteas Dianse," Vulg. " Qui faciebat templa argentea Dianae," Beza, 
1566. " Which made silver shrines for Diana," Tyndale, Cranmer, 
Geneva, Authorised.] 

152 A defencp: of the English [ch. 

are translated ' devotions', I knoAv not, except you mean 
Acts xvii. 23, where the word is aefiaafxaTa^ , which your 
vulgar Latin translator, 2 Thess. ii., calleth quod colitur, 
" that which is devoutly Avorshipped," and so the word 
signifieth ' whatsoever is rehgiously worshipped or adored,' 
and not "idols," as you say, nor simulacra, "images," as your 
translator calleth them, Acts xvii. ; for it is derived of cre/Bd^o), 
or cr6/3d^oyuat, which signifieth ' to adore,' ' to worsliip,' 'to 
honour devoutly or rehgiously^.' " Every human creature" 
signifieth in that place, 1 Pet. ii., every magistrate, of what 
creation or ordination soever he be ; and so is meant by 
that translation (all ordinances of men), not all laws of men, 
wliich yet were not impious, if you add the restraint, "for 
the Lord," for whom nothing can be that is against his law. 
The rest of your quarrels be all answered before. 

Ma II 1 i n , Martin. What caused these strange speeches in theu- English bibles? 

. " Thou shalt not leave my soul in the grave." " Thou hast delivered 

1 sal. Ixxxvi. >ji 

n. my soul from the lowest grave. "A covetous man is a worshipper of 

images." " By laying on of the hands of the eldership." " HaU, freely 
beloved." " Sui lieth at the door, and thou shalt rule over liim." 
"Break off thy sins with righteousness," for "redeem with alms." 
" Jealousy is cruel as the grave," for " as hell." Cant. viii. Bib. anno 
1579. " The griefs of the grave caught me." Psalm cxvi. And, " God 

Taai. xiix. will redeem my soul from the power of the grave." " O grave, I will 
be thy destruction." Os. 18, and such like. What made Calvin so 
translate into Latin, that if you turn it into English, the sense is, that 

Titus iii. God 'poured water upon us abundantly,' meaning the Holy Ghost ? what 
else, but because he would take away the necessity of material water in 
baptism, as in his commentary and Beza's it is evident ? 

FuMvK, Fulke. These speeches are not strange in God's church, 

howsoever they sound in your ears. So many of them as 

p ava6e<opaiv to cre^aa-fiaTa vfj-cov. Acts xvii. 23. " Videns simu- 
lacra vestra," Vulgate. " Contemplans sacra vestra," Beza. " For 
as I passed by and beheld your devotions," Geneva 1560, Tomson's 
translation of Beza, 1583, though this appeared a year later than 
Martin's book : it may, however, be from the first edition of the trans- 
lation, printed in 1576.] 

[ 'YnorayriTe ovv naaj] avdpanrivTj KTicrei. 1 Pet. ii. 18. " Subjecti 
igitur estote omni humanse creaturse," Vulgate. " Subjecti estote 
cuivis humanae ordinationi," Beza, 1566. " Submit yourselves unto all 
manner ordinance of man," Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, Authorised. 
"Be subject, therefore, to every human creature," Rhemish.] 


translate for sheol the " grave," have their answers, sect. 32, 
and chap, vii., which is appointed for that question : " The 
covetous man a worshipper of images," sect. 5 of this chap, 
and chap. iii. numb. 12. The "laying on of hands of the 
eldership" is warranted by the signification of the Greek 
word irpea^vTepiov, which signifieth a company of elders, 
as it is translated by your own vulgar Latin interpreter, 
Luke xxii. QQ. Seniores jjlebis : " The elders of the people ;" 
and Acts xxii. 5, he calleth irav to irpea-ftuTepLov, Omnes 
majores natu. And for a consistory of elders is the word 
preshyterium used in Latin by Cyprian, Lib. in. Epist. 11, 
and Lib. ii. Epist. 8, 10. Of " hail, freely beloved," we spake 
lately, sect. 43. ; of the text Gen. iv. 7, " sin Beth at the 
door," &c. sect. 28, and chap. x. sect. 9 ; of Dan. iv. " break," 
for "redeem thy sins," sect. 41. 

If Calvin, Tit. iii., did wrongly interpret that which is 
spoken of water, to be meant of the Holy Ghost, what is 
that to our translation ? But certain it is, that Calvin never 
meant to take away the necessity of material water from 
the sacrament of baptism, although he taught that the want 
of the external sacrament, where it caiuiot be had, doth 
not deprive God's elect from eternal salvation : neither hath 
Beza any other meaning in his annotation. 

Martin. I had meant to have but briefly skimmed over these IMahtiv, 
things, but multitude of matter maketh me too long, as it chanceth to ^^' 
a man that wadeth through miry and foul places ; and yet the greatest 
demonstration that they are wilful corrupters, is behind, which only I 
vsdll add, and for the rest refer the reader to the whole book. 

Fulke. It is a small sign, that multitude of matter is Fulke, 
cause of your length, when you repeat one matter in so ^'• 
many sections : your similitude of a man wading in foul and 
mu'y places doth well agree unto you ; for you have been 
all this wliile wading in the puddle of your slanders, mis- 
prisions, and false accusations, in which you have so berayed 
yourself, as you shall not easily purge yourself from the 
mire of them. But because you say the greatest demon- 
stration that we are wilful corrupters, is behind, though it 
be tedious for us to rake in such a gogmire^ of your forge- 
ries and false accusations, yet we will take courage, and 

[•^ Quagmire.] 




consider what main demonstration you can make, to prove 
us in our English translations to be wilful corrupters. 


Tom. 2. fol. 
4(»5. edit. 
Wittel). anno 

The express 
testimonies of 
Beza, (whom 
the English 
follow here- 
in,) that he 
doth wilfully 
and of pur- 
pose translate 
against such 
and such 




Martin. Doubt you whether they translate of purpose and par- 
tiality, in favour of their opinions ? you shall hear themselves say so, 
and protest it. If I dealt with Lutherans, this one testimony of Luther 
were sufficient, who, being asked why he added "only" into the text, 
Rom. iii., answered that he did it to explicate the apostle's sense more 
plainly, that is, to make the apostle say more plainly, that faith only 
justified. And his disciple Illyricus disputeth the matter, that the 
apostle saying, " by faith vnthout works," saith in deed, " only faith." 
But because I deal rather with our English Calvinists, and Beza is their 
chief translator, and a captain among them, whom they profess to follow 
in the title of the New Testament, anno 1680, and by the very name of 
their Geneva bibles, let us see what he saith. 

Fulke. I think there is no man doubteth but they trans- 
lated the scripture with purpose to maintain their opinions ; but 
whether they have wittingly and wilfully translated falsely, 
to maintain any errors or heretical opinions, that is the matter 
in question, and which hath need of your greatest demonstra- 
tion to make it apparent. That Luther might rightly inter- 
pret the place, Rom. iii., of only faith justifying, by the 
excluding of works, I have before acknowledged, and Illyricus 
doth rightly defend it. But that he did put in the word 
" only" in his translation, which is not in the original, I will 
not take upon me to excuse, seeing the truth of that doc- 
trine is manifest without that addition; and Luther himself, 
in his later editions, hath reformed it. Again, what fault 
soever other men have committed in their translation, we are 
unjustly charged therewith, except we follow the same in ours. 
That we profess to foUow Beza by the very name of our 
Geneva bibles, it is a very ridiculous argument : for our Bibles 
are so commonly called, because they were translated and first 
printed at Geneva, not by Beza, (who at that time had scarce 
finished his translation of the New Testament, and never dealt 
with translating of the old, so far as we know,) but by certain 
godly and learned Enghshmen, which hved there in queen 
Mary's time, to enjoy the liberty of a good conscience, which 
they could not have in their own country. 

Martin. First, concerning iKTavodre, which the vulgar Latin and 
Erasmus translate, Agile pcemtentiam, or " Do penance." " This interpre- 


tatkm," saith he, "I refuse for many causes, but for this especially, 
that many ignorant persons have taken hereby an occasion of the false 
opinions of satisfaction, wherewith the church is troubled at this day." 
Lo ! of purpose against satisfaction he will not translate the Greek 
word as it ought to be, and as it is proved to signify, both in this book 
and in the annotations upon the New Testament. A little after speak- 
ing of the same word, he saith, " Why I have changed the name poeiii- Matt. ui. 8. 
tentia, I have told a little before ;" protesting that he wUl never use 
those words, but resipiscere, and resipiscentia, that is, amendment of Loco supra 
life ; because of their heresy, that repentance is nothing else but a mere 
amendment of former life, without recompence or satisfaction or penance 
for the sins before committed. See chap. xiii. 

Fulke. Of piu'pose against the heresy of satisfaction, Fulke, 
Beza will not translate the Greek word, as the vulgar Latin ^^• 
translator doth, but yet as the Greek word ought to be trans- 
lated. Erasmus, finding the vulgar Latin insufficient, hath 
added vitoe prions, that is, "repent ye of your former life." 
Neither doth Beza find fault with the English word "repent," 
but with the Latin agite pcenitentiam, when you translate it, 
"do penance," meaning thereby pain or satisfaction for sins 
passed, to be a necessary part of true repentance, which is 
not contained in the Greek word /uerai/oeti/', which signifieth 
changing of the mind; that is, not only a sorrow for the sin 
past, but also a purpose of amendment, which is best expressed 
by the Latin word resipiscere, which is always taken in the 
good part, as fxcTavoelv is in the scripture, whereas the Latin 
words poenitere and poenitentia are used in Latin of sorrow 
or repentance that is too late : as poenitere and poenitentia 
may be said of Judas' grief of mind, which caused liim to 
hang himself, but not fxeravoelv, or fierdvoia, or resipiscere 
and resipiscentia: and therefore the Holy Ghost, speaking of 
his sorrow, useth another word, mcTafxeXeiv, and /ueTameXeia. 
And this is the cause why Beza refused the word poenitentia, 

[^ Ferte igitur fructum dignum resipiscentia. Matt. iii. 8., Beza? 
Vers. 1556. Ceterum iieravoflv quum est verbum absolutum, proprie 
significat post factum sapere, et de errore admisso ita dolere ut cor- 
rigas: quod (ut opinor) Latinis proprie significat resipiscere. Bezte, 
Annot. in v. 2. 

TertuUian's definition of fifravoia is this : Nam et in Graeco sono poe- 
nitentiae nomen, non ex delicti confessione, sed ex animi derautatioiie 
compositum est. Adversus Marcionem, lib. ii. Opera, p. 472. Edit. 
Rigaltii, 1641.] 


having a Latin word that more properly doth express the 
Greek word; as we might lawfully do in Enghsh, if we had 
another English word proper to that repentance which is 
always joined with faith and purpose of amendment, for want 
whereof we are constrained to use the words repent and 
repentance, which may be taken in good part, or in evil : for 
we say, repentance too late, and Judas repented too late ; 
but there is no fxerdvoia that can be called too late. But 
where you say, that resipiscere and resipiscentia is nothing 
but amendment of life, and that repentance, in our heresy, is 
nothing else but a mere amendment of former life, you speak 
untruly : for those words do signify not only amendment of 
life, but also sorrow for the sins past, although without re- 
compense or satisfaction, wliich you call penance for the sins 
before committed; for we know no recompence or satisfaction 
made to God for our sins, but the death of Christ, who " is the 
propitiation for our sins." 1 John ii. Neither hath your blas- 
phemous satisfaction any ground in the Greek word fxeravoeiv, 
but only a foolish colour by the Latin translation, agite pceni- 
tentiam, wliich it is like your Latin interpreter did never 
dream of, and therefore he useth the word resipiscere, 2 Tim. ii. 
Of them to whom God should give /ueravoiav, "repentance to 
the acknowledging of the truth," et resipiscant, and so they 
may repent, or, as you translate it, " recover themselves from 
the snare of the devil." Seeing, therefore, repentance is the 
gift of God, it is no recompence or satisfaction made by us to 
God, to answer his justice ; but an earnest and true grief of 
mind for our transgression of God's law, and offending against 
his majesty, with a certain purpose and determination of 
amendment, so near as God shall give us grace. Hitherto 
therefore we have no demonstration of any wilful corruption, 
but a declaration of the cause that moved Beza to use a more 
exact translation, and such as cometh nearer to the original 
word, than that which the vulgar translation hath used, upon 
which occasion of a great blasphemy hath been taken, and is 
yet maintained. 

Martin, Martin. Again, concerning the word "justifications," which in the 

scripture very often signify the commandments, he saith thus: "The 

mKcuM- Greek interpreters of the bible (meaning the Septuaginta) applieth this 

Luke i. 6. word to signify the whole law of God, and therefore commonly it is 

wont to be translated word for word, Justificationes : which interpreta- 


tion therefore only I rejected, that I might take away this occasion also 
of cavilling against justification by faith ;" and so for " justificaHones " 
he putteth "constituta," TuUy's word, forsooth, as he saith. Can you 
have a more plain testimony of his heretical purpose ? 

Fulke. Concerning the Greek word liKamnaui, wliieli Fulke, 
Beza translateth constitutionihus, "constitutions;" and you 
confess that in scripture it doth very often signify the com- 
mandments ; he saith first, that as the whole law of God is 
divided into three parts, moral, ceremonial, and juchcial, so 
the Hebrews have tlu-ee several words to express the several 
precepts of those laws. For the Hebrew word which signifieth 
the ceremonial precepts, the Greeks use to translate SiKaiw- 
fxaTu. So the sense is, that Zachary and Ehzabeth were just, 
Avalking in all the moral commandments, and observing the 
holy rites and ceremonies, as much as concerned them : but 
the tliird word, which signifieth " judgments," St Luke doth 
not add, because the exercise of judicial cases did not belong 
unto them, being private persons. After tliis he saith, that 
the Greek interpreters of the Bible transferred tliis word unto 
the whole law of God, and especially to the holy ceremonies : 
so, verily, exceedingly commending the law, that it is a certain 
rule of all justice ; and therefore men are wont commonly, in 
respect of the word, to turn it "justifications." And this word 
in this place, Beza indeed confesseth that he refused to use, 
for avoiding of cavillations against justification by faith, seeing 
he hath none other word ; neither would he for offence seek 
any new word to express justification by faith, whereas the 
word ^iKaiiOfxara, in this text, Luke i. 6., signifieth not that 
by wliich they were made just, but the commandments or pre- 
cepts of God, by walking in which they were declared to be 
just. For " by the works of the law" (such as St Luke here 
speaketh of) " no flesh shall be justified" before God. Therefore 
^tKaiMfxara in this place must have another sense than justi- 
fications, namely, commandments, as you say it is often taken, 
or constitutions, as Beza calleth them, which before God and 
the world are not of such difference, that you should charge 
him with wilful corruption for translating that word constitu- 
tions, which you confess signifieth very often commandments, 
Wlierefore here appeareth no heretical purpose, except you 
will say that justification by faith, which St Paul so often, so 
diUgently, and so purposedly doth teach, is an heresy. 





* Lo! how 
simply, Ani- 
tna, carcase. 


Martin. Again, when he had rejected this translation. Act ii. 27, 
Non derelinques anirriam meam in inferno, " thou shalt not leave my 
soul in hell," 'because,' as he saith, 'hereupon grew the en-ors of 
Christ's descending into heU, of limbus, and of purgatory; at length 
he concludeth thus : ' Whereas the doubtful interpretation of one or 
two words hath brought forth so many monsters, I chose rather simply* 
for 'soul' to say carcase; for 'hell,' grave; than to foster these foul 

Fulke. Beza sheweth, that because the doubtful inter- 
pretation of the Hebrew word sheol into ot^j^s, which doth not 
properly signify "hell," but a dark place, such as the pit is 
wherein the dead are put, and of the poets is taken for hell, 
had bred such monsters as limbus patruni, purgatory, and 
Christ's descending into them ; therefore he did plamly trans- 
late that verse as it is meant, of the raising up of Christ's 
body out of the grave; which, if he had translated out of He- 
brew, as he did out of Greek, had not been offensive nor 
untrue, as I have shewed in answer to your preface, sect. 46, 
and of this chapter, sect. 32. But seeing Beza himself hath 
altered that translation, and it was never followed of our 
English translators, what demonstration is this, that we are 
wilful corrupters of the holy scriptures ? 


Acts iii. 21. 

Flac. niyr. 



Martin. Again, when he had translated for " Whom heaven must 
receive," thus, " who must be contained in heaven," he saith : ' Whereas 
we have used the passive kind of speech, rather than the active,' which 
is in the Greek, 'we did it to avoid all ambiguity. For it is very 
expedient that there should be in the church of God this perspicuous 
testimony against them, that for ascending by faith into heaven, so to 
be joined to our Head, obstinately maintain that Christ must be called 
again out of heaven unto us :' meaning his presence in the blessed 
sacrament, and inveighing no less against the Lutherans than the 
catholics, as the Lutherans do here against him for this wilful inter- 
pretation, and that by Calvin's own judgment, who thinketh it a forced 

Fulke. True it is, that he meant concerning the manner 
of Christ's presence in the blessed sacrament, and that he so 
translated, to exclude the carnal manner of presence, which 
the papists have invented : but all this while the translation 
is true, and warranted by Gregory Nazianzen, as I have 
shewed before, sect. 36 of this chapter. For he that saith, 
'heaven must receive Christ,' (as you do,) cannot deny, except 
he be mad, but that Christ must be received of heaven. So 


that Beza doth none otherwise translate, than you do, Qui 
dcemonia hahebant; which is actually thus to be translated, 
"those who had devils," and you say, 'which were possest of 
devils,' that is, were had of devils. That the Lutherans did 
find fault with Beza's translation, it proveth it not to be false : 
he hath justified it sufficiently in his answer to Selneccerus 
and the divines of Jena. Neither doth Calvin (as you say 
untruly) think it a forced translation; but not weighing the 
sentence sufficiently, supposeth that the words are placed am- 
biguously, for that it seemeth to be doubtful whether we 
should say, that heaven must receive Christ, or that Christ 
must receive heaven. But if it be once granted (as it is of 
you) that heaven must receive Christ, there is neither Calvin 
nor niyricus, nor any man that beareth the face but of a 
young grammarian, yea, of a reasonable man, which can deny 
that conversion by the passive : Christ must be received of 
heaven. Therefore, if you had any respect of your credit 
with men of understanding, you would not for shame rehearse 
this quarrel so often ; which hath not so much as any colour or 
shew of reason to maintain it, but that you abuse the names 
of niyricus and Calvin, as misliking it, whose arguments by 
no means will serve your turn, because that which is denied 
by them, or doubtful to them, is plain and confessed by you. 

Martin. But Beza goeth forward still in this kind. Rom. v. 18, Martin, 
whereas Erasmus had put propagatum est, indifferently, both of 
Adam's sin, which made us truly sinners, and of Christ's justice, which 
maketh us truly just; he rejecting it, among other causes why it dis- 
pleased him, saith : " That old error of the sophists," meaning catholics, 
" which for imputative justice put an inherent quality in the place, is 
so great and so execrable to all good men, that I think nothing is so 
much to be avoided as it." 

Fulke. A manifest echpsis, or want of words, being in Fclke, 
that verse, for which Erasmus hath put pr&pagatum est, ^^' 
which word is ambiguous, and may give occasion of error, for 
men to think that the righteousness of Christ cometh by pro- 
pagation, as the guiltiness of Adam doth ; Beza thought good 
to supply the lack, rather by such words as are warranted by 
the text, verses 12, 15, and 16, and can give no occasion of 
error. And therefore thus he rendereth that verse : Nempe 
igitur, sicut per unam offensam reatua venit in omnes homi- 


nes ad condemnationem ; ita per unam justificationem bene- 
ficium redimdavit in omnes homines ad justificationem vitce. 
" Now therefore, as by one offence guiltiness came upon all 
men unto condemnation ; so by one justification the benefit 
abounded toward all men unto justification of life." In this 
verse these words, "guiltiness came," and "the benefit 
abounded," are added for expUcation sake, and are taken out 
of the verses going before, in which the apostle speaketh of 
the same matter. Therefore Beza, to avoid occasion of the 
heresy of the papists, of justice inherent, among other causes 
which he rehearseth, refuseth that word by which Erasmus 
supphed the text, and useth such words for that purpose, as 
the apostle himself in the verses jirecedent doth off^er, for this 
necessary supply : which seeing it must be made, that there 
may be a sense and understanchng, who can mislike that it 
should be made by the apostle's own words ? or who can 
suppose that the apostle would leave any other words to be 
understood, than such as he himself had before expressed ? 
And as for the heresy of inherent justice, [it] can have no hold 
in this verse, except some such word be added for supply, as 
the apostle never used in this case. That Christ's justice doth 
make us as truly just, as Adam's sin made us truly sinners, 
there is no question: but by what means we are made just, we 
say, as the scrip tm^e teacheth us to speak, that justice is im- 
puted to us through faith, Rom, iv. The papists say it is a 
quahty inherent within us; for which words and matter they 
have no warrant in the holy scripture. 

Madtin, Martin. These few examples prove unto us that the scriptures 

' ■ translated verbatim, exactly, and according- to the proper use and signi- 

fication of the words, do by the heretics' confession make for the 
catholics ; and therefore Beza saitli he altereth the words into other : 
and, I think, it may suffice any indifferent reader to judge of his purpose 
and meaning in other places of his translation, and consequently of theirs 
that either allow him, or follow him, which are our English Calvinists 
and Bezites. Many other ways there are to make most certain proof 
Cai. Heb of their wilfulness, as when the translation is framed according to their 
Titus iii. 6. false and heretical commentary ; and when they will avouch their trans- 

Beza ^ Thess 

ii. 15. 'and lations out of profane writers. Homer, Plutarch, Pliny, Tully, Virgil, 

"'■ ■ and Terence, and reject the ecclesiastical use of words in the scriptures 

and fathers; which Beza doth for the most part always. But it were 

infinite to note all the marks, and by these the wise reader may conceive 

the rest. 


Fulke. These examples prove nothing less. For to run Fulke, 
over them all briefly, the first two we translate verbatim, ^^' 
"A man is justified by fiiith without the works of the law," 
and "repent" and "repentance" we say for /ueravoelv and 
fxeTcivoia. What make these for popery ? If Luke i. 6, we 
should call ^iKaKOfxara, "justifications," what should popery 
gain but a vain cavil, when yourselves confess, that those 
justifications are often used for commandments? Acts ii. 27, 
all our EngUsh translations are as you would have them, 
"Thou shalt not leave my soul in hell, nor suffer thy holy 
one to see corruption ;" by which verse no descent into 
limbus, but the resurrection from death, can be proved. 
If we translate as you do Acts iii. 21, "whom heaven 
must receive," we will easily convince that Christ must be 
received of heaven. In the last example the question is not, 
how the word is to be translated, but by what word the 
want of the text is to be suppUed ; which we supply not with 
words of our own, but with the apostle's own words. 

Have you not gained greatly by translating verbatim, 
exactly, and according to the proper use and signification of 
the words ? I like well, that every indifferent reader may 
judge by these examples of Beza's purpose in other places 
of his translation. But you have two other ways to make 
certain proof of their wilfulness. The first is, when the trans- 
lation is framed according to their heretical commentary. 
A reasonable man would think rather that the commentary 
were framed according to the text, than the text to the 
commentary. But to justify the truth of those translations, 
for the first text you quote, it is handled sect. 26 of tliis 
chapter, and so consequently cap. vii. The second is answered 
sect. 46 ; the other two concerning tradition sect. 23 of the 
preface, and in the chapter following. The second way of 
proof is, when they wijl avouch their translations out of pro- 
fane writers. I think there is no better way to know the 
proper or cUverse signification of words, than out of ancient 
writers, though they be never so profane, who used the words 
most indifferently in respect of our controversies, of which 
they were altogether ignorant. As for the ecclesiastical use 
of words in the scripture and the fathers, which Beza (you 
say) doth for the most part reject, it is untrue : except there 
be good and sufficient cause why he should so do, warranted 



by the scripture itself, or necessary circumstances of the 
places which he doth translate. For if the scripture have 
used a word in one signification sometimes, it is not ne- 
cessary that it should always use it in the same signification, 
when it is proved by ancient writers that the word hath other 
significations, more proper to the place, and agreeable to the 
rule of faith, which perhaps the usual signification is not. As 
for example, the scriptm^e useth very often this word Trots for 
a "boy," or "servant :" but when the same word is apphed to 
our Saviour Christ in the prayer of the apostles. Acts iv. 27, 
who would not translate it "child," or "son," as the word doth 
sometime, but more seldom, signify ? How the fathers of the 
church have used words, it is no rule for translators of the 
scripture to follow ; who oftentimes used words as the people 
did then take them, and not as they signified in the apostles' 
time : as fxeravoia for a public testification of repentance, 
which we call "penance," ■^^eiporovia for "imposition of hands," 
and such lilie ; in which sense these words were never used 
before the apostles' times, and therefore it is not like that 
they would begin a new use of them, without some manifest 
explication of their meaning, without the which no man 
could have understood them ; as they have done in the use 
of these words Tr/crTi?, (iarrTidiJia^ eKKXrjcria, and such like. 
It is not a fault therefore prudently to seek even out of pro- 
fane writers, what is the proper signification of words, and. 
how many significations a word may have, and reverently to 
judge, which is most apt for the place to be translated, and 
most agreeable with the Holy Ghost's meaning in that text ; 
and not always to be tied to the usual signification of words, 
as they are sometimes taken in scripture, and much less 
as they are used of the ancient fathers. 

Martin, Martin. But would you think that these men could notwithstand- 

Annot. ing speak very gravely and honestly against voluntary and wilful 

translations of scripture, that so notoriously offend therein themselves ? 
Hearken what Beza saith against Castalio and the like. " The matter," 
saith he, " is now come to this point, that the translators of scripture 
out of the Greek into Latin, or into any other tongue, think that they 
may lawfully do any thing in translating. Whom if a man reprehend, 
he shall be answered by and by, that they do the office of a translator, 
not that translatcth word for word, but that expresseth the sense. So 
it Cometh to pass, that whiles every man will rather freely follow hia 
own judgment, than be a religious interpreter of the Holy Ghost, he 

Acts X. 46. 


doth rather pervert many things than translate them." Is not this well 
said, if he had done accordingly 1 but doing the clean contrary, as hath 
been proved, he is a dissembling hypocrite in so saying, and a wilful 
heretic in so doing, and condemned by his own judgment. 

Fulke. No wise man doubteth, but they could both Fulke, 
speak very gravely and avoid most rehgiously all voluntary 
and wilful translations of scripture, that might tend to main- 
tain any error. And the rather they will be persuaded, that 
Beza hath avoided that lewd kind of translation, for which 
he reproveth Castalio, when they shall see that you, so 
malicious an enemy unto him, having spent all your invention 
to seek holes in Ms translation, can find nothing but such 
childish cavils, as when they be discovered, men will marvel 
that you were not ashamed to move them. 

Martin. But after this general view of their wilful piirpose and Martin, 
heretical intention, let us examine their false translations more particu- * 
larly, and argue the case with them more at large, and press them to 
answer, whether in their conscience it be so or no, as hitherto is said ; 
and that by several chapters of such controversies as their corruptions 
concern ; and first of all (without further curiosity whence to begin, in 
cases so indifferent) of traditions. 

Fulke. The more particularly you examine our trans- Fulke, 
lations, the freer, I hope, they shall be found from false- ^^• 
hood and witful corruption. And the more at large you 
argue the case, and press us to answer, the more you shall 
make the case to appear worse on your side, and the truth 
clearer on our part. And as God is witness of our con- 
science and sincerity in setting forth his word, without adulte- 
ration or corruption; so I appeal to the consciences of all 
indiiferent readers, whether hitherto you have gotten any 
advantage against us in this whole chapter, which yet you 
profess to be the abridgement and sum of your whole 

Jl— 2 



Heretical Translation of Holy Scripture against Apostolical 

Matitin, 1. Martin. This is a matter of such importance, that if they should 
grant any traditions of the apostles, and not pretend the written word 
« See the an- Only, they know that by "^such traditions, mentioned in all antiquity, their 
the new tes- religion were wholly defaced and overthrown. For remedy whereof, 
2'Thess.'ii. 15. ^^d for the defacing of all such traditions, they bend their translations 
against them in this wonderful manner. Wheresoever the holy scrip- 
ture speaketh against certain traditions of the Jews, partly frivolous, 
partly repugnant to the law of God, there all the English translations 
'jrapd6o<ri<!. follow the Greek exactly, never omitting this word " tradition." Con- 
trariwise, wheresoever the holy scripture speaketh in the commendation 
of traditions, to wit, such traditions as the apostles delivered to the 
church, there all their said translations agree, not to follow the Greek, 
which is still the selfsame word; but for "traditions," they translate 
" ordinances," or " instructions." Why so, and to what purpose ? We 
appeal to the worm of their conscience, which continually accuseth 
them of an heretical meaning, whether by urging the word, "traditions," 
wheresoever they are discommended, and by suppressing the word where- 
soever they are commended, their purpose and intent be not to signify 
to the reader that alljtraditions are naught, and none good ; all reproveable, 
none allowable. 

FuLKE, 1. Fulke. Traditions indeed is a matter of such import- 
ance, as if you may be allowed whatsoever you will tlirust 
upon us under the name of unwritten traditions, the written 
word of God shall serve to no purpose at all. For first, 
as you plainly profess, the holy scripture shall not be ac- 
counted sufficient to teach all truth necessary to salvation, 
that the man of God may be perfect, prepared to all good 
works. Secondly, with the Valentinian heretics, you accuse 
the scriptures of uncertain understanding without your tra- 
ditions ; under pretence of which you will bring in what 
you hst, though it be never so contrary to the holy scrip- 
ture's plain words, by colour of interpretation, as you do the 
worshipping of images, and many other hke heresies. As 
for the mention that is made of apostolical traditions in 
divers of the ancient fathers, some of them are such as you 
yourselves observe not, and not for the tenth part of those 
that you observe can you bring any testimony out of the 


ancient fathers ; as is proved sufficiently by so many propo- 
sitions as were set down by the bishop of Salisbury, M. 
Jewel, whereof you can bring no proof for any one to have 
been taught within 600 years after Christ. Now concern- 
ing the traditions of the apostles, what they were, who can 
be a better witness unto us than Ignatius, the disciple of the 
apostles, of whom Eusebius writeth, that when he was led 
towards Rome, where he suffered martyrdom, he earnestly 
exhorted the churches by which he passed, to continue in 
the faith, and against all heresies, which even then began 
to bud up, he charged them to retain fast the tradition of 
the apostles, which by that time he protested to be com- 
mitted to writing ; for by that time were all the books of 
the new testament written. The words of Eusebius concern- 
ing tliis matter are, Lib. iii. cap. 35 : Trpovrperre re aTrpl^ 
ej^ecrOai t^s twi' airoaroXwu irapaooaew^, r)v virep aacbaXeias 
Kai eyypaCpo)^ rjori luapTvpo/iefo^ ciaTvirovaOai avaynaiov 
tjyelro. " And he exhorted them straitly to keep the tra- 
dition of the apostles, which, testifying that it was now for 
assurance committed to writing, he thought necessary to be 
plainly taught." Against tliis tradition of the apostles, which 
for certainty and assurance is contained in their holy and un- 
doubted writings, we say nothing, but strive altogether for it. 
But because the word "traditions" is by you papists taken to 
signify a doctrine secretly delivered by word of mouth, with- 
out authority of the holy scriptures, we do willingly avoid 
the word in our translations, where the simple might be 
deceived, to think that the Holy Ghost did ever commend 
any such to the church, which he would not have to be com- 
mitted to writing in the holy scriptures ; and instead of that 
word so commonly taken, although it doth not necessarily 
signify any such matters, we do use such words as do truly 
express the apostle's meaning, and the Greek word doth also 
signify. Therefore we use the words of "ordinances," or "in- 
structions," or "institutions," or "the doctrine deHvered," all 
which, being of one sense, the Greek word irapd^ocn^ doth 
signify, and the same doth "tradition" signify, if it be rightly 
understood : but seeing it hath been commonly taken, and is 
urged of the papists to signify only a doctrine dehvered 
beside the word of God written, in such places where the 
Holy Ghost useth the Greek word TrapdSoai^ in that sense, 


we translate by that word " tradition ;" where he useth it for 
such doctrine as is grounded upon the holy scriptures, our 
translators have avoided it, not of any heretical meaning, 
that all irapaSocrei?, "traditions," are naught, but that all such 
as have not the holy scripture to testify of them, and to war- 
rant them, are evil, and to be avoided of all true Christians; 
which cannot without blasphemy acknowledge any imper- 
fection in the holy scriptures of God, which are able to make 
a man wise unto salvation, if they should think any doctrine 
necessary to salvation not to be contained therein. 

Martin, 2. Martin. For example. Matt. XV.', thus they translate, "Why do thy 

vapaSocTLv. disciples transgress the tradition of the elders V And again, " Why do 

you also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition V And 

again, " Thus have you made the commandment of God of no effect 

by your tradition." Here, I warrant you, all the bells sound " tradition," 

and the word is never omitted ; and it is very well and honestly trans- 

SThes^ii. 15. lated, for so the Greek word doth properly signify. But now on the 

o-ejs, other side, concerning good traditions, let us see their dealing. The 

traditiones. apostle by the selfsame words, both in Greek and Latin, saith thus : 

" Therefore, brethren, stand and hold fast the traditions which you have 

learned either by word, or by our epistle^." And again, "Withdraw 

2 Thess. iii. 6. yourselves from every brother walking inordinately, and not according 

to the tradition which they have received of us ^." And again, according 

1 Cor. xi. 2. to the Greek which they profess to follow : " I praise you, brethren, 

P Atari ol ^udrjTai aov rrapa^aivovtri ttjv Trapahoaiv twv Trpea- 
^vrepcov; Matt. XV. 2.] 

[2 Kat Kparfire ras TrapaSoa-eis as ebiMxOrjTf. 2 Thess. ii. 15. 
"Tenete traditiones quas didicistis," Vulg. "Tenete traditam doctri- 
nam, quam edocti estis," Beza. 

"Hold ye the traditions that ye have learned," Wiclif. " Keep 
the ordinances which ye have learned," Tyndale, Cranmer. "Keep 
the instructions which ye have learned," Geneva. "Hold the tradi- 
tions which you have learned," Rheims. "Hold the traditions which 
you have been taught," Authorised version.] 

P Kai pfj Kara rrjv irapa^ocriv rjv TrapeKa^ov Trap' i]pS)V, 2 Thess. iii. 6. 
"Et non secundum traditionem quam accepemnt a nobis," Vulg. "Et 
non ex tradita doctrina quam accepit a nobis," Beza. 

"And not after the teaching that they received of us," Wiclif. 
" And not after the institution which he received of us," Tyndale, 
Cranmer. "And not after the instruction which he received of us,' 
Geneva. "Not according to the tradition which they have received 
of us," Rheims. "Not after the tradition which he received of us," 
Authorised version.] 


that in all things you are mindful of me, and as I have delivered unto /caOws 
you, you keep my traditions \" . ZT^^p"'- 

Fulke. No marvel, though you cannot avoid the bells "^vi^^^^ 
sounding against man's traditions ; which sound must needs 
pierce your conscience more than it offendeth your ears, 
seeing you know that many of those things which you defend 
under the name of traditions, against the holy scriptures, 
have not God for their author, which forbiddeth to be wor- 
shipped in such sort, but man, or rather Satan, which hath 
inspired such things unto men, thereby to dishonour God, 
and to discredit his holy and most certain written word. Yet 
you say it is well and honestly translated. God knoweth 
how fain you would there were no such text extant in the 
gospel against your superstition and will-worsliipping. But 
now let us see our crafty dealing (as you count it) against 
good traditions. In the first text, 2 Thess. ii. 15, you may 
see your understanding of traditions quite overthrown. For 
the apostle speaketh of such traditions as were delivered to 
them partly by preaching, and partly by his epistle. There- 
fore tradition doth not signify a doctrine delivered by word 
of mouth only. But yet you will say it signifieth here a 
doctrine dehvered by word of mouth also, which is not writ- 
ten. How prove you that? because all that the apostle 
preached was not contained in his epistles to the Thessa- 
lonians, therefore was it nowhere written in the scriptures? 
What the tradition was in the second text, 2 Thess. iii. 6, is 
expressed by and by after: "that he which will not labour 
must not eat." Was this doctrine never written before? 
when God commandeth every man to labour in his vocation. 
As for the third place, 1 Cor. xi. 2, your own vulgar Latin 
translator both teacheth us how to translate it, and also dis- 
chargeth our translation of heresy and corruption; for he 
calleth irapd^ocrei^ in that place, " prcecepta^," precepts, or 
instructions, or commandments, or ordinances: I see no great 
difference in these words. By which his translation he 
sheweth, that in the other places, 2 Thess. ii. and iii., he 
meaneth the same tiling by traditiones, "traditions," that we 

r* 'ETratrS be Vfias, aSeXf^ot, on navra fiov jiffivrjade, Koi Kadcos 
irapf8(0Ka v[xiv, ras napadocreis KaT€)(eTe. 1 Cor. xi. 2.3 
[^ "Et sicut tradidi vobis, priecepta mea tenete," Vulg.] 


do by "ordinances" or "instructions", and might as well have 
used the word prwcepta in those two places, as he did in 
this one, if it had pleased him. 

]Martin,3. Martin. Here we see plain mention of St Paul's traditions, and 

consequently of apostolical traditions, yea, and traditions by word of 

mouth, delivered to the churches without writing or scripture. In all 

which places look, gentle reader, and seek all their English translations, 

YetM. Fuike and tliou shalt not once find the word "tradition," but instead thereof, 

found there, " Ordinances," " instructions,'' "preachings," "institutions," and any word 

a"wnst ' else rather than "tradition," Insomuch that Beza, their master, trans- 

Ko^ke"^^lf lateth it " traditam doctrinam," " the doctrine delivered," putting the 

he give not singular number for the plural, and adding " doctrine" of his own : so 

stance, let framing the text of holy scripture according to liis false commentary, or 

himself the rather putting his commentary in the text, and making it the text of 

2 Thess. ii. scripture. Who would think their malice and partiality against tradi- 

^apaoo- tions were so great, that they should all agree with one consent so duly 

o-eis. and exactly in these and these places to conceal the word, which in other 

places do so gladly use it, the Greek word being all one in all the said 

places ? 

FuLKEj 3. Fulke. There is no question but the apostles by word 
of mouth, that is, by preaching and teaching, dehvered the 
doctrine of the gospel to the churches; but that they preached, 
taught, or dehvered any doctrine as necessary to salvation, 
which they proved not out of the holy scriptures, and which 
is not contained in the new testament or the old, this is 
not yet proved, neither ever can it be proved. Such matters 
of ceremonies, order, and discipline, which are mutable, no 
man denies but they might and did deliver ; but yet in 
them nothing but agreeable to the general rules set down 
in the scripture. But in all these places the word " tradi- 
tion" cannot once be found. Yet M. Fulke saith it is found. 
Yea, doth ? where saith he so ? You answer, p. 153, 
against D. Saunders' Rocke. Therefore, if he give not an 
instance, let liim give himself the He. But he that chargeth 
Fulke to say it is found, heth the more. For so he saith 
not : read the place who will. He speaketh against Saunders, 
who affirmed that the very name of "tradition" used in the 
better part, cannot be suffered to be in the Enghsh bible, 
as though there were some decree of the synod, or act of 
parliament against it ; and saith, it may be and is suffered 
in that sense which the Holy Ghost useth it, but not to 


bring prayer for the dead, or any thing contrary to the 
scripture under the name of traditions apostohc. By which 
words I mean, that there is no prohibition or edict to the 
contrary, but if any man will use the word tradition in trans- 
lation of the Bible, he is permitted so to do: I do not affirm 
it is so found. But as if I should say. The papists in 
England are suffered to hve as becometh good subjects, I 
affirm not that they are, or shall be found so to live. But 
to omit tliis foohsh quarrel, Beza our master is said to have 
translated Trapd^oaei'i, "the doctrme dehvered," putting the 
singular number for the plural, and adding " doctrine" of his 
own. What an heinous matter here is! The word "doctrine" 
is a collective, comprehending many precepts or traditions ; 
and in the next chapter the apostle useth the same word in 
the singular number. Again, the 1 Thess. iv. 2, he calleth the 
same TrapayyeXiw, "precepts" or "documents," which word 
signifieth the same that irapa^oaei's : witness your vulgar Latin 
translator, which gives one word for both, prwcepta, 1 Cor. xi. 
and 1 Thess. iv. And that the word doctrine is added to 
the text, it is a fond cavil : for the word doctrine is con- 
tained in Trapa^oai^, which signifieth a "dehvery ;" but where- 
of, if not of doctrine ? Our Saviour Christ also, Matt. xv. 9, 
by the testimony of Esay reproveth the tradition of the 
Pharisees, " teaching the doctrines precepts of men ;" which 
testimony of Esay could take no hold of them, if traditions 
were not doctrines and precepts. So that in this transla- 
tion of Beza (cry out as loud as you can) there is neither 
fraud nor corruption, mahce nor partiahty ; but a prudent 
dechning of that term, wliich might give occasion of error, 
and the apostle's meaning truly and faithfully dehvered. To 
shew that one word may be diversely translated, especially 
when it signifieth divers things, to wise men is needless, 
I have said before, you yourselves translate, (or else you 
should be taken for madmen,) the Latin word tradere, of 
which tradition is derived, sometimes "to dehver," sometimes 
"to betray," and yet the Greek and Latin word bemg all 
one in all the said places. 

Martin. Yea, they do elsewhere so gladly use this word, Martin, 4. 
"tradition," when it may tend to the discredit thereof, that they 
put the said word in all their English bibles, with the like full con- 


Col. ii. 10. sent as before, when it is not in the Greek at all : as when they 

Tlooyjxa- ^j.jjjjgijjtg ^j^yg « jf yg be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the 

world, why, as though living m the world, are ye led with tra- 

* Of the year ditionsI" and, as another English translation* of theirs readeth more 

heretically, " Why are ye burdened with traditions ?" Tell us sincerely, 

you that profess to have skill in the Greek, and to translate according to 

the Greek ; tell us, we beseech you, whether this Greek word Soy/Lta 

Col. ii. 24. do signify " tradition," and BoyfiaTi^ea-daL " to be led or burdened with 

ooy/uao-ii'. traditions." You cannot be ignorant that it doth not so signify ; but as a 

iv 66y- jj^jig before in the same chapter, and in other places, yourselves translate 

Soynara, "ordinances," " decrees,' so tl BoyfiaTi^fcrde must be (as m the 

vulgar Latin it is) quid decernitis '^ Why do you "ordain, " or " decree," 

or, " why are you led with decrees ?" 

FuLifE, 4. Fulke. It grieveth you that tradition should be men- 
tioned in the ill part as it is. And it seemeth you would 
defend the Colossians against St Paul, who reproveth them 
because they were led by ordinances according to the " pre- 
cepts and doctrines of men." But you seem to make hght 
of such traditions, and therefore you count that the more 
heretical translation, which saith, " why are you burdened 
with traditions?" Wlierefore, I pray you, is that more 
heretical ? Do you not think that such traditions as are the 
commandments and doctrines of men, are burdensome to men's 
consciences ? But they that have skill in the Greek tongue 
must tell you sincerely, whether tliis word ^oyina doth signify 
" tradition," and ^oynaTiXeaQai " to be led or burdened 
with traditions," I answer you, if ^oyfxaTa, as you confess, 
signify "ordinances" and "decrees" or "doctrines," and the 
word tradition signifieth the same, why should not ^oyiua- 
ritecrOai " to be led or burdened with traditions," as well as 
Avith ordinances, customs, or decrees? These words differ 
much in sound, but not greatly in signification. Dogmata 

P In the original, ti ws C^vres iv Koa-fia boyfiari^eade ; in Tyn- 
dale's version, 1534, " Why, as though ye yet lived in the world, are 
ye led with traditions of them that say — " Cranmer's version 1539, 
and the Bishops' bible, " Why, as though ye yet lived in the world, 
are ye led with traditions?" The Geneva version, 1557, "Wherefore, 
if ye be dead with Christ and are free from the ordinances of the 
Avorld, why, as though ye yet lived in the world, are ye burdened with 
traditions?" In the Authorised version, "Why, as though living in 
the world, are ye subject to ordinances ?"J 


Pythagorea, that might never be put in writing, what were 
they but the traditions of Pythagoras? Such were the 
philosophical decrees called Soynara, whereof TuUy speaketh 
in his book De jinihus, which were dictata, taught by 
word of mouth, wliich to set forth among them was coimted 
an heinous offence : might not those rightly be called tra- 
ditions ? 

Martin. Justify your translation, if you can, either out of scriptures, Martin, 5. 
fathers, or lexicon. And make us a good reason why you put the word 
" traditions" here, where it is not in the Greek ; and would not put it 
in tlie places before, where you know it is most evidently in the Greek. 
Yea, you must tell us why you translate for tradition, " ordinance," and irapa^ocrii 
contrary for ordinance, "tradition ;" so turning cat in pan (as they say) late^-'ordi- 
at your pleasure, and wresting both the one and the other to one end, l^^yf^a, ^^^ 
that you may make the very name of traditions odious among the "^ tradition :" 
people, be they never so authentical, even from the apostles, which your trary. 
conscience knoweth, and you shall answer for it at the dreadful day. 

Fulke. First, out of scripture I justify it thus : those Fulke, 5. 
dogmata, against which the apostle writeth, were according 
to the precepts and doctrines of men : but such the scripture 
caUeth traditions, Matt. xv. Therefore these were traditions. 
Secondly, out of the fathers : Chrysostom^ upon this place 
saith, Traditiones Grcecorum taxat, he reproveth the tra- 
ditions of the Greeks, saying, all is but a human doctrine. 
Secondly, St Ambrose^ upon tliis text ; "Love not the world," 

^ IIws Se ov Koa-fiov Traparrjpria-ftTi; Koi opa ttws avToiis Kcofia)8e7, 
[xrj 6lyr}S, p-Tf a\jn], /lit) yevcrj], cos peyaKoDV rivav air^xop-^vovs' a eVrt 
TTcivTa els (pdopav tji aTTO)(pi]aei. KadelXe rav TToXkatv ttjv (fivcrlcixriVj 
KOL eTTijyaye' Kara to. eVraX/xara /cat ScBaaKoXias rmv avSprnwutv. tl 
Xe'yeis ; Kav Tov vopov e'nrrjs, \017r6v diSacTKaXia (crrlv avOpcairov peTa 
Tov Kaipov. 1] on irapiTroiovv avrov, ovras emfv, 7/ rot tcop 'EXXt/j/qjj/ 
cilviTTfTai' oXov avdpainvov to hoypa ea-ri, (fyrjaiv. Chrysost. in Epist. 
ad Coloss. cap. ii. Horn. vii. Opera, Vol. xi. p. 372. edit. Benedict.] 

[^ Nolite, inquit, diligere mundum, neque ea quce in mundo sunt; 
id est, neque elementa, quibus compactus est mundus, neque errores 
quos humana adinvenit traditio, deligamus; sed solum Christum qui 
mortuus est pro nobis. Ambros. Comment, in Epist. ad Coloss. ii. 2. 
Opera, Vol. 11. p. 270. Sagina enim carnalis sensus traditio humana 
est...Hinc enim aggravati non poterant sursum jungi capiti suo. p. 271. 
(super V. 23.)]] 


saith he, " nor those errors quos humana adinvenit traditio, 
" which the tradition of men hath invented." And afterward, 
Sagina enim carnalis sensics humana traditio est: "For 
the tradition of man is the pampering of carnal sense ; by 
which, he saith, men are so burdened, that they cannot be 
joined to the head which is above." Yet " bm-dening with 
traditions" is called of you the more heretical translation. 
Say as much to Ambrose, that he maketh an heretical com- 
mentary. The interpreter of Theodoret, printed at Collen, 
1573, hath translated in the very text, for ^t^acr/caXtas, 
"traditioneshominum," "traditions of men." You see now, this 
matter is not so void of testimony of the fathers, as you sup- 
posed. The reason you require us to make, is made often 
before. We thought it not meet to express the Greek word 
in both places by the same English word, because the 
Enghsh word, as it is used by you, is not so indifferent, to 
signify the doctrine of God dehvered out of the scriptures, 
as to signify doctrines of men devised beside the scriptures. 
K we must answer why we call tradition " ordinance," and 
ordinance " tradition ; " let your vulgar Latin interpreter an- 
swer us, or you for him, why he calleth tradition " precept," 
and usage or precept "tradition"? The one he doth 1 Cor. 
xi. 2, the other Acts vi. 14, where the Greek is eO^, signify- 
ing there " precepts," or " observations commanded," he trans- 
lateth traditiones, as in the other place the Greek being 
Trapa^daei^ he translateth " proicepta." If tliis be lawful for 
him, why should it be counted corruption or false trans- 
lation in us? seeing we are moved with as good reason 
as can be yielded for him. As for authentical and apos- 
tolical traditions, that are grounded upon the doctrine of the 
apostles expressed in their writings, we shall be ready to 
receive them, whensoever they shall be brought forth. If 
they cannot be proved by the scriptures, which are "written 
that we might beheve, and beheving have eternal life," and 
" which are able to make us wise unto salvation," we have 
nothing to do with them : we may well spare them : nay, 
we dare not admit them, lest we should answer for blas- 
phemy against the holy scriptures in that di^eadful day, if 
by admitting of such traditions we should profess, that the 
doctrine contained in the holy scriptures is unperfect or 
insufficient to salvation. 


Martin. Somewhat more excusable it is, but yet proceeding of the Martin, 6. 
same heretical humour, and on your part (that should exactly follow the 
Greek) falsely translated, when you translate in St Peter's epistle thus : 
" You were not redeemed with corruptible things from your vain con- i Pet. i. is. 
versation received by the tradition of the fathers." Where the Greek is t»c ■t)7s ixa- 
thus rather to be translated, "from your vain conversation delivered by T"'-" . 
the fathers." But your fingers itched to foist in the word "tradition," o-rpot^f/s 
and for "delivered" to say "received," because it is the phrase of the '^"■JP"'^"-- 


catholic church, that it hath " received " many things " by tradition," 
which you would here controul by likeness of words in this false trans- 

Fulke. I marvel why you should count it an heretical Fulke, 0. 
humour, to use the word "traditions" in the evil part, which 
the Holy Ghost so useth, and your own vulgar translator 
also ; but that you are more partial in allowing the tra- 
ditions of men, than we in avoiding the term sometimes, 
only for doubt lest traditions of men should creep into the 
place of God's commandments. But how is it falsely trans- 
lated on our part, that profess to follow the Greek, which 
is truly translated in your vulgar Latin text, which pro- 
fesseth to translate the Greek as well as we? Belike, be- 
cause we say, "received by the tradition of the fathers," which 
according to the Greek should be, " delivered by the fathers," 
but that our fingers itched to foist in the word " tradition." 
What, I pray you, hath your vulgar translator foisted in 
that word? did liis fingers itch against such catholic phrases, 
that he would controul them by a false translation ? Do you 
not perceive that wMle you rail upon us, you revile your 
own vulgar Latin translation, wliich hath the same word 
" tradition," for wliich you storm against us ? But for de- 
livered, we have said, received. See whither frowardness 
di'iveth you : the apostle saith, " they were dehvered from 
the vain conversation of their fathers' tradition." Do you 
then understand, that it was delivered by the fathers, but 
not received by their sons? Certainly they were dehvered 
from that vain conversation which they had received. For 
receiving doth necessarily import dehvering. And because 
you called for a lexicon in the next section before, Scapula 
will teach you, that iraTpowapa^oTo^ doth signify as in- 
differently a patre traditus as a patre acceptus, " dehvered 
by the father," and " received by the father." What wranghng 
then is this, about the moon-shine in the water, to cry 


out "false translation," "foisting," "itching fingers," and I 
know not what? 

Martin, 7. Martin. But concerning the word "tradition," you will say perhaps 
the sense thereof is included in the Greek word, "delivered." We 
grant. But would you be content, if we should always expressly add, 
Tradidi " tradition," where it is so included 1 Then should we say, 1 Cor. xi. 2, 

'jrat>touiKa. « j pj,jjjgg yQ^ ^}^q^ ^g J have delivered you (by tradition), you keep 
my precepts," or " traditions." And again, v. 23 : " For I received of 
our Lord, which also I delivered unto you," (by tradition,) &c. And 
Luke i. 2: "As they (by tradition) delivered unto us, which from 
the beginning saw," &c., and such like, by your example, we should 
translate in this sort. But we use not this licentious manner in trans- 
lating holy scriptures ; neither is it a translator's part, but an inter- 
preter's, and his that maketh a commentary ; neither doth a good cause 
need other translation than the express text of the scripture giveth. 

FuLKE, 7. Fulke. We will say it is contained in the Greek woi'd 
waTpoirapa^oTou, which signifieth "received hy tradition or 
delivery from the fathers," and not in the verb Trapa^iSwfxi, 
wliich signifieth otherwise many times, than simply "to de- 
Hver ;" and when it signifieth " to dehver," it doth not alway 
signify to dehver by word of mouth, without writing, as 
you understand tradition, but as well by writing, as by 
preacliing. As when St Paul saith, " I received of the Lord 
that which I delivered unto you," speaking of the institution 
of the supper, he meaneth that which the evangelists had 
written, and he himself doth write. So 2 Thess. ii., when 
he willeth them to hold the traditions which they had 
learned of liim, he speaketh not only of such as they learned 
by his preaching, but such also as they learned by his 
epistle. Wherefore if you should expressly add the word 
"tradition" in yom' partial signification, wheresoever you find 
the word delivered, you should not only translate ridiculously, 
but also heretically and falsely. Words in derivation and 
composition do not always signify according to their pri- 

JMartin, 8, Martin. And if you will yet say, that our vulgar Latin translation 
hath here the word, " tradition," we grant it hath so, and therefore we 
also translate accordingly. But you profess to translate the Greek, and 
not the vulgar Latin, which you in England condemn as papistical, and 
say it is the worst of all, though Bcza, your master, pronounce it to be 


the very best"; and will you, notwithstanding, follow the said vulgar Discover of 
Latin, rather than the Greek, to make ti-aditions odious ? Yea, such is pag. 147. ' 
your partiality one way, and inconstancy another way, that for your Nwum Test, 
heretical purpose you are content to follow the old Latin translation, ^^^' 
though it differ from the Greek ; and again, another time you will not 
follow it, though it be all one with the Greek most exactly ; as in the 
place before alleged, where the vulgar Latin translation hath nothing of 
traditions, but, " Quid decernitis," as it is in the Greek, you translate, 
" Why are ye burdened with traditions 1" Coi. ii. 20. 

Fulke. You may be sure we will say that we know Fulke, 8. 
to be true, and sufficient to discharge oui' translation from 
your foohsh and malicious quarrelhng. But we profess (you 
say) to translate the Greek, and not the vulgar Latin. And, 
I pray you, what doth your vulgar Latin interpreter pro- 
fess to translate, but the Greek ? If he then, translating out of 
Greek, could find "tradition" in the Greek word, why should 
not we find the same, especially being admonished by liim ? 
who if he translated truly, why are we blamed for doing 

P Beza's opinion was not quite what Martin has here represented 
it. In the preface alluded to, he says as follows: "Vulgata" illius 
editionis, qua jampridem utimur, quis auctor fuerit, video inter doctos 
homines non constare. Hoc quidem constat, prseterquam quod pluri- 
mis locis a librariis est depravata, saepe illam a Graecis discedere, ssepe 
obscure multa interpretari, quaedam praetermittere, quaedam adjicere; 
ut minime mu-um sit, eruditis hominibus nunquam satisfecisse, impe- 
ritis autem multis magnos errores objecisse. Eruditos voco, non eos 
duntaxat qui praecipue hoc nomine digni sunt, quales sane perpauci 
semper extiterunt; sed eos quoque qui vel mediocrem utriusque lin- 
guae peritiam ad pietatis cognitionem attulerunt. Ceteros autem, quod 
ad id attinet de quo agimus, nihil moror; quorum tamen duo genera 
esse video : unum eorum qui per imperitiam, quod pleraque errata 
non modo non intelligunt, sed ne suspicari quidem possunt, idcirco in 
recepta ilia intei"pretatione acquiescunt ; qui tamen proculdubio meliora 
amplecterentur, siquis ilia commonstraret : alterum eorum qui, perverso 
quodam ingenio et ignobUi natura praediti, ita in crassis illis et ob- 
scuris teuebris versantur, ut veritatis lucem sponte refugiant. lUi com- 
miseratione sane aliqua digni sunt: isti vero plane indigni quorum 
corruptis et depravatis judiciis quisquam commoveatur ; quinimo 
aperti sunt veritatis hostes; mirus enim est inter mendacium et i<mo- 

rantiam, qua isti tantopere delectantur, consensus Quum io-itur 

in ilia Vulgata editione (quam tamen ego maxima ex parte amplector, 
et ceteris omnibus antepono) permulta requirantur, laudandus est 
profecto eorum labor qui illam emendare studuerunt. Praefatio in 
Nov. Test. edit. Bezae, 1556.] 


as he did ? if his translation be false, why is it allowed 
as the only authentical text ? We follow not, therefore, the 
Latin translation, but join with it wheresoever it followeth 
the Greek, as we do in ten thousand places more than 
this ; and willingly depart not from it, but where it de- 
parteth from the Greek, or else useth such words as would 
be offensive, if they were translated into Enghsh, or occa- 
sion of error ; as you do likewise, when you depart from 
the proper and usual signification of words, which your 
Latin translator useth : as when you call fcenerator, "a cre- 
ditor," which signifieth an usurer, Luke vii. ; stabulum, " an 
inn," and stabularius, "an host," Luke x.; una sahhati, "the 
first of the sabbath," Johnii. ; ecclesia, "the assembly," Acts 
vii.; 6ap^iVmato, "washings," Mark vii., and such like. 

But we in England (say you) condemn the Latin trans- 
lation, as papistical. We accuse it as not true in many places, 
and we say it is the worst of all, though Beza, our master, 
pronounce it to be the very best. This toucheth me some- 
what; for in the margm is noted "Discovery of the Rock, 
p. 147." where, indeed, speaking of the Hebrew text of the 
Old Testament, and the Greek of the New, the Greek trans- 
lation of the Septuagmt, and the common Latin translation, I 
say the Tridentine Council alloweth none for authentical, but 
the common Latin translation, that is the worst of all. Now 
what saith Beza contrary to this ? Speaking of the divers 
Latin translations of the New Testament only, he saith of 
the vulgar Latin, that he followeth it for the most part, 
and preferreth it before all the rest : maxima ex parte am,- 
plector, et cete^^is omnibus antepono. So that I speak of 
the whole Bible, Beza of the New Testament only : I speak 
of the vulgar Latin text, in comparison of the original He- 
brew and Greek, and the Septuagint's translation ; Beza, 
of the Latin translation of the New Testament, in comparison 
of all other Latin translations, that were before him, as 
Erasmus, Castalio, and such like. According to your old 
manner therefore, you rehearse out of my writings, either 
falsifying the words, or perverting the meaning. These 
things considered, you have no cause to accuse us of par- 
tiality and inconstancy, for .following or leaving your Latin 
text, wliich we never did but upon good ground and reason 


Martin. So that a blind man may see you frame your translations Martin, 9. 
to bolster your errors and heresies, without all respect of following 
sincerely either the Greek or the Latin. But for the Latin no marvel ; 
the Greek at the least why do you not follow ? Is it the Greek that 
induceth you to say ordinances for traditions, traditions for decrees, "^apa- 
ordinances for justifications, elder for priest, grave for hell, image for s^yua'-ra. 
idol? Tell us before God, and in your conscience, whether it be because SiKutui- 
you will exactly follow the Greek : nay, tell us truly, and shame the !^"g"«^. 
devil, whether the Greek words do not sound and signify most properly -repo's. 
that which you of purpose will not translate, for disadvantaging your ".?,''^l 
heresies ? And first, let us see concerning the question of images. 

Fulke. A blind man may see, that you cavil and slan- Fulke, 9. 
der, quarrel and rail, without respect either of conscience 
towards God, or honesty toward the world : insomuch, that 
most commonly you forget the credit of your own vulgar 
Latin translation, so you may have a colour to find fault 
with ours. And yet again you ask, whether it be the Greek 
which induceth us to say, for irapaooaei'i ordinances, and 
for Soyfxara traditions, &c. I tell you, the Greek alloweth 
us so to say, wliich is sufficient, when other godly causes 
move us beside so to translate. Is it the Latin that in- Fanerator. 


duceth you to say, for 'an usurer,' ' a creditor; for 'a stable,' ^""fy^*^'"""' 
'an inn;' for 'what was done,' 'what was chanced^;' for ' fas- ;^^^sentes, 
tening to,' 'crucifying";' for 'be you saved,' 'save yom'selves^;' Act?ii!'"'' 
for 'creature,' 'creation;' for 'confessed,' 'promised*;' for 'aA^tfyn"^' 
boat,' 'a ship;' for 'a ship,' 'a boat ;' for 'singing,' 'piping^;' Lukl'"".*^' 

Q^ Acts v. 7. I^ot ?7 yvvi) avTov firj eiSvIa to yeyovos etarjXdev. 
" Et uxor ipsius, nesciens quod factum fuerat," Vulg. " And his 
wife not knowing what was chaunced," Rhemish version.] 

P Acts ii, 23. Sta ;^etpa)i/ avojiav npoa-Tni^avTes dveiXere. "Per 
manus iniquorum affligentes interemistis," Vulg. " You by the hands 
of wicked men have crucified and slain," Rhemish version. "Have 
crucified and slain," Versions 1534, 1539, 1557, 1611.] 

[I** Acts ii. 40. ^codrjTe dno rfjs yeveas ttjs (TKoXias ravrq's. " Sal- 
vamini a generatione ista prava," Vulg. "Save yourselves from this 
perverse generation," Rhemish version.] 

[^ Acts vii. 17. Kada>s 8e rjyyiC^v 6 xpo^os rijs e-n-ayyfXlas ^s c!>ixo(T(v 
6 eeoff Tw A^padji. "Cum autem appropinquaret tempus promis- 
sionis, quam confessus erat Deus Abrahae," Vulg. "And when the 
time drew near of the promise which God had promised to Abra- 
ham, &c." Rhemish translation.] 

Q® Matt. xi. 17. HvX-qa-afiev vfjuv, Koi ovk dpxwacrde. "Cecinimus 
vobis, et non saltastis," Vulg. "We have piped to you, and you 
have not danced," Rhemish version.] 

r 1 12 





Alark iv. 
Matt. xi. 
Matt. xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Luke vi. 

for 'hay,' 'grass';' for 'refection,' 'refectory^;' for 'foolish- 
ness,' 'madness^;' for 'an image,' 'an idol,' &c. ? I blame 
not all these as false translations; yet every man may see 
they are neither usual nor proper : yet as for some of these 
(though not for all) I know you may give good reason, so 
may we, for any shew of alteration or departing from the 
usual signification of the Greek word, that you are able to 
allege against us. 

P Matt. xiv. 19. 'AvaK\i6iivai eVl roiis x^P'rovs. '•^ Discumbere su- 
per foenum," Vulg. " To sit down upon the grass," Rhemish 

[^ Mark xiv. 14. Hoi) eWi t6 KaraXvfia; "Ubi est refeetio mea?" 
Vulg. " Where is my refectory 1" Rhemish version.] 

[** Luke vi. 11. 'EnXriadrja-av dvoias. "Repleti sunt insipientia," 
Vulg. " And they were replenished with madness," Rhemish version.] 



Heretical Translation ag-ainst Sacred Imao-es. 

Martin. I beseech you, what is the next and readiest and most proper Martin, 1. 
English of idolum, idololatra, idololatria ? is it not, " idol, idolater, e'iowXov. 
idolatry"? Are not these plain English words, and well known in our '^'""''^O'^"- 
language? Why sought you further for other temis and Avords, if you had eiowXoXa. 
meant faithfully ? What needed that circumstance of three words for '^z'^'"- 
one, " worshipper of images," and " worshipping of images'* " ? Whether, Bib. 1577. 
I pray you, is the more natural and convenient speech, either in our 
English tongue, or for the truth of the thing, to say, as the holy scripture 
doth, " covetousness is idolatry," and consequently, " the covetous man Eph. v. 
is an idolater ;" or, as you translate, " covetousness is worshipping of ° ' ""' 
images," and, " the covetous man is a worshipper of images "1 

Fulke. If you ask for the readiest and most proper Fulke, 1. 
English of these words, I must needs answer you, ' an image, 
a worshipper of images, and worshippmg of images,' as we 
have sometimes translated. The other that you would have, 
' idol, idolater, and idolatry,' be rather Greeldsh than EngUsh 
words; which though they be used of many Enghshmen, 
yet are they not understood of all, as the other be. And 
therefore I say, the more natural and convenient speech 
for our Enghsli tongue, and as convenient for the truth of 
the thing, it is to say, ' covetousness is the worsliipping of 
images, and the covetous man is a worshipper of images,' 
as to say, 'covetousness is idolatry, and the covetous man 
is an idolater,' as I have proved before ; seeing idolum by 
your own interpreter is called simulacrum, and simula- 
crum signifieth as much as imago, an image, cap. i. numb. 5. 

Martin. We say commonly in English, Such a rich man maketh Martin, 2. 
his money his god; and the apostle saith in like manner of some, Theabsur- 
" whose belly is their god," Phil. iii. ; and generally eveiy creature is translation, 
our idol, when we esteem it so exceedingly that we make it our god. man is a wor- 
But who ever heard in English, that our money, or belly, were ourimTge?." 

[* The versions of 1534 and 1539 render ^Vt? ia-riv elBaXoXarpela, 
Col. iii. 5, " Which is worshipping of images." The Geneva transla- 
tion has, like the Authorised version of 1611, "Which is idolatry." 
The Vulgate has, " Qu^ est simulacronim servitus."] 

12 2 


images, and that by esteeming of them too much we become worshippers 
of images ? Among yourselves are there not some even of your super- 
intendents, of whom the apostle speaketh, that make an idol of their 
money and belly, by covetousness and belly cheer ? Yet can we not call 
you therefore in any true sense, '"' worshippers of images," neither would 
you abide it. You see then, that there is a great difference betwixt idol 
and image, idolatry and worshipping of images ; and even so great 
difference is there betwixt St Paul's words and your translation. 

FuLKE, 2. Fulke. Before you can shew that absurdity of this 
translation, ' a covetous man is a worshipper of images,' you 
must defend your own vulgar Latin translation, which calleth 
el^coXoXarpeia simulacrorum servitus, which I have proved to 
signify the serving or worshipping of images, cap. i. numb. 5. 
Now to our English phrase, ' a rich man maketh his money 
his god, a glutton his belly,' and so of other creatures 
honoured above measure ; I say, the worshipping of images 
may be after two sorts, either when they are worshipped as 
gods, (as among the grosser sort of the gentiles and papists,) 
and then it is against the first commandment, "Thou shalt 
have none other gods but me"; or else Avlien men pretend to 
worship God by them, as the Israehtes did in the calf, 
Exod. xxxii., and in Jeroboam's calves, and in the brasen 
serpent, and the wiser sort of the gentiles and papists pretend 
to do in worsliipping their images ; and then it is a sin 
against the second commandment, "Thou shalt make to thy- 
self no graven images : thou shalt not fall down to them, 
nor worship them." By similitude therefore of them that 
trusted in images as their gods, and so honoured them which 
were not able to help them, the apostle calleth the covetous 
man a worshipper of images, and covetousness, worshipping of 
images ; and not properly, but because their money is to 
them the same occasion of departing from God, that the 
images was to the worshipper of them. So if we will speak 
unproperly, as the apostle saith, " their belly is their God," we 
may say it is their idol, or their image, which they worship 
as God : not that the belly, or any such thing, is God, or an 
idol, or an image properly ; but that it is so termed, for that 
to such vile creatures is given that divine honour which is due 
to God, but by worshippers of idols and images is given to 
idols or images. I confess the use of the English tongue, in 
these speeches, is rather to call them idols than images, and 


to extend the name idol (which is always taken in the evil 
part) to that which the word image cannot so aptly signify : 
yet in truth of the thing there is no difference between idol 
and image, worshipping of idols, and worshipping of images, 
whether you speak of such as be idols and images, so properly 
called, or of such as be only by simiHtude figuratively so 
named. If any of our superintendents be such as you speak 
of, I wish them amended, or else removed. For my part, I 
know none to be such, although I wish to the best increase of 
God's grace, to despise the world, and to be more earnest in 
setting forth God's glory. As for the great difference you 
speak of betwixt St Paul's words and our translation, I see 
none as yet. 

Martin. Will you see more yet to this purpose? In the English Ma nnv, 3. 
bible, printed the year 1562, you read thus : " How agreeth the temple 2 Cor. vi. 
of God with images^ V Can we be ignorant of Satan's cogitations herein, 
that it was translated of purpose to delude the simple people, and to 
make them believe that the apostle speaketh against sacred images in 
the churches, which were then in plucking down in England, when this 
your translation was first published in print ? Whereas in very truth 
you know, that the apostle here partly interpreteth himself to speak of 
men as of God's temples wherein he dwelleth, partly alludeth to Salo- 
mon's temple, which did very well agree -vAith images (for it had the Salomon's 
cherubins, which were the representations of angels, and the figures of wen'agrVe 
oxen to bear up the lavatory), but with idols it could not agree, and but' n^^wSi 
therefore the apostle's words are these, " How agreeth the temple of God "'°'^" 
with idols V 

Fulke. We had need to see more, before we be con- Fulke, 8. 
victed of corruption ; for hitherto we have seen nothing but a 
fooUsh cavil, grounded upon the common use of the word "idol" 
in English, in which speech it is taken only for unlawful 
images, although in the Greek it signifieth as generally as 
imago in Latin, and by Tully himself is used for the same. 
But in the Enghsh bible, printed 1562, we read thus, 
2 Cor. vi., " How agreeth the temple of God with images''^ ?" 
Here you cannot be " ignorant of Satan's cogitations, that it 

P Tt's be (TvyKaTciQecns va^ Beou fxera elhdikav ; 2 Cor. vi. 16. 
"What agreement hath the temple of God with idols?" Rhemish, 
Authorised version.] 

P It is "images" in the Bibles of 1584, 1589, 1557, but "idols" 
in the Authorised version, 1611.] 


was translated of purpose to make the simple people believe, 
that the apostle speaketh against sacred images in chm'ches, 
which were then in plucking down in England, when this 
translation was first pubhshed in prmt." You are so cunning 
in Satan's cogitations, that he hath inspired mto you a mani- 
fest untruth ; for this text was so translated and printed near 
tliirty years before 1562, in king Henry the Vlllth's time, 
when images were not in plucking down. And when it was 
printed again, 1562, which was the fifth year of her majesty's 
reign (God be thanked ! ) there was no need to pluck down 
images out of churches, which were plucked down in the first 
and second years of her reign. AVherefore that purpose is 
vainly imagined of you : for the translator's purpose was the 
same that the apostle's, to shew that the religion of God 
hath nothing to do with images made by man's device to 
honour them as gods, or to honour God by them. And 
where you say that the apostle " alludeth to Salomon's temple, 
which did well agree with images, but not with idols ;" I 
answer you, Salomon's temple cUd not agree with images 
made by the device of man, to honour God by them or in 
them. For the cherubins were not of man's device, but of 
God's commandment : the oxen to hold up the lavatory, the 
pomegranates, and other ornaments, were not for any use of 
religion to worship God in them or by them, but for use and 
garnishing of the house appointed by God in his law, and by 
direction of his Spirit in Salomon. For the commandment, 
"Thou shalt not make to thyself," is no restraint unto God, but 
unto men of their own brain or private intent to make images 
to serve in i-ehgion. Therefore the apostle, speaking of such 
images as were forbidden by God's law, is not otherwise to be 
understood ; and no more is our translation. 

]\Iahtin, 4. Martin. When Moses by God's appointment erected a brasen 

/xfT-a rSiv serpent, and commanded the people that were stung- with serpents to 

Thebraseti t)ehold it, and thereby they were healed ; this was an image only, and as 

an?magi^'^*' an image was it erected and kept and used by God's commandment. 

and lawful: But when it grew to be an idol, saith St Augustine, that is, when the 
afterward an ° ' o ■> j 

idol, and people began to adore it as God, then king Ezechias brake it in pieces, to 

unlawiul. x x tj ' o i. ^ 

Numb. xxi. the great commendation of his piety and godly zeal. So when the 

Civil, e. 8. children of Israel, in the absence of, made a calf, and said, " These 

Exod.°xxxii. ^re thy gods, O Israel, that brought thee out of Egypt," was it but an 

image which they made ? was that so heinous a matter, that God would 


SO have punished them as he did ? No, they made it an idol also, saying, The molten 
" These are thy gods, O Israel ;" and therefore the apostle saith to the i^con ".' 
Corinthians, "Be not idolaters, as some of them ;" which also you trans- f'0""\oA.«- 

' " Tpai, 

late most falsely, " Be not worsliippers of images, as some of them." 

Fulke. The brasen serpent first and last was an image, Fulke, 4. 
holy when it was commanded by God to be made as a sacra- 
ment of our redemption by Clirist, lawful when it was reserved 
only for memory of that excellent miracle ; unlawful, cursed, 
and abominable, when it was worshipped, and therefore justly 
broken in pieces by the godly king Ezechias. You cite Au- 
gustine as it pleaseth you, to follow your own context : 
Quern sane serpentem, projiter facti memoriam reservatum, 
cum postea j^opuliis errans tanquam idolum colere ccepisset, 
Ezechias, &c. "Which serpent truly, being reserved for the 
memory of the fact, when afterward the people going astray 
began to worship as an idol, Ezechias the king, serving God 
with rehgious power, with great praise of his piety brake in 
pieces." Here it is certain that Augustine, as most ecclesias- 
tical writers, useth the word idolum for an image abused. 
But that the people began to adore it as God, he saith not ; 
for they only worshipped God by it, falsely indeed and super- 
stitiously, but yet not believing that image to be God him- 
self, but a holy representation of his power, which was shewed » 
by it in the days of Moses. That Ezechias, by rehgious or 
ecclesiastical power and authority, did put down idolatry, you 
pass it by, as though you saw it not in St Augustine. But 
you bring another example to prove that images, except they 
be worsliipped as gods, be no idols. In truth, seeing all 
rehgious worship is due only to God, although the idolaters 
intend not to worship then* images as gods, yet by worsliip- 
ping of them they make unto themselves gods of them, and 
so offend both against the first and second commandments. 
Yet how prove you that the Israelites made a god of their 
calf ? Because they said, " These are thy gods, Israel, 
that brought thee out of the land of Egypt." But even by 
that same speech it is manifest that they worshipped not the 
calf, as believing it to be God; but contrariwise protested 
thereby, that they meant not to change their God, but to 
worship the same God, which brought them out of the land of 
Egypt, by that image ; which they could not be ignorant that 
it was made but yesterday of their ear-rings, and therefore 


could not think it was the same God that brought them out of 
the land of Egypt, but that they would worship God by that 
visible shape, which they saw before them. And Aaron by 
his proclamation confirmeth the same : " To-morrow," saith 
he, " shall be holy day to Jehovah," that is, to the only true 
God, whom they dishonoured, pretending to worship him by 
that image : so heinous a thing it is to make images to repre- 
sent God, and to worship them for his honour, although the 
worshipper do not behove them to be gods. Therefore where 
we have in some translations, 1 Cor. x., called those idolaters 
worsliippers of images, we have not erred ; for an image it 
was they worshipped, thinliing to worship God thereby. 
But if either image or idol, worsliippers of images or idolaters, 
would please you, we have both in our translations, the one 
expressing what Ave mean by the other ; that these cavillations 
were needless, but that malice against the truth incenseth you 
to pick quarrels, and that translation which useth the terms of 
idols and idolaters, was then in printing at Geneva, when 
images were in pulling down in England, namely, the first and 
second years of the queen's reign, being finished the 10th of 
April, 1560 ; which notably confuteth the fond purpose, that 
you slander our translators to have had. 

Martin, 5. Martin. We see then that the Jews had images without sin, but 

not idols. Again, for having idols they were accounted like unto the 

Psai. cvi. gentiles, as the Psalm saith : " They learned their works, and served 

their graven idols." But they were not accounted like unto the gentiles 

for having images, which they had in Salomon's temple, and in the 

In cap. XXV. l)rasen serpent. St Jerome writeth of the Ammonites and Moabites 

The protest- (who were gentiles and idolaters), that coming into the temple of Jeru- 

to the Am-'' salem, and seeing the angelical images of the cherubins covering the 

Moabites™ propitiatory, they said, " Lo, even as the gentiles, so Juda also hath idols 

of their religion." These men did put no difference between their own 

idols and the Jews' lawful images. And are not you ashamed to be like 

to these ? They accused Salomon's temple of idols, because they saw 

there lawful images : you accuse the churches of God of idolatry, because 

you see there the sacred images of Christ and his saints. 

FuLKE, 5. Fulke. We know that the Jews had images without 
sin, and so have we ; but to have images in any use of 
rehgion without God's express commandment, neither is it 
lawful for them nor us, because Ave have a general com- 
mandment to the contrary. They were accounted like the 
gentiles therefore, for having images contrary to God's com- 



mandment, of their own appointment, and worshipping them ; 
not for having images appointed by God, wliich yet it was 
not lawful for them to worship. But the Protestants, you 
say, are like to the Ammonites and Moabites, of whom St in Ezech. 
Jerome writeth', that commg into the temple, and seemg 
the cherubins covering the propitiatory, they said, "Lo, even 
as the gentiles, so Juda also hath idols of their reUgion," 
as we accuse the church of God of idolatry, because we see 
there the sacred images of Christ and his saints. 

This that you say St Jerome writeth, he only reporteth 
it as a ridiculous fable of the Jews : Ridiculam vero in 
Jioc loco Hehrcei narrant fabulam. " The Hebrews in this 
place tell a ridiculous fable." But fables are good enough 
to bolster false accusations. Secondly, he reporteth them 
to say : Sicut cunctm gentes colunt shnulacra, ita et Juda 
habet suce religionis idola. " As all nations worship images, 
so hath Juda also idols of their religion." By wliich words 
you see, that he calleth images and idols the same things. 
For simidacrmn to be taken as largely as imago, I have 
proved before, insomuch that man is called simidacrum Dei, 
"the image," not the idol, "of God," as idol is taken in the 
evil part. But neither are you like to Juda, nor we to 
Ammon and Moab, in this case. For Juda had God's com- 
mandment to warrant their images ; so have not you, but 
his commandment against your images. Again, Moab and 
Ammon (if the tale were true) had idolatrous images of 
their own ; so have not we. 

Martin. But tell us yet, I pray you, do the holy scriptures of Martin, 6. 

either Testament speak of all manner of images, or rather of the idols of 

the gentiles 1 Your conscience knoweth that they speak directly against The holy 

the idols and the idolatry that was among the pagans and infidels ; from speTketh 

the which as the Jews in the Old Testament, so the first Christians in flXoVtife 

the New Testament, were to be prohibited. But will you have a demon- ^'^"[^^'f aij"' 

stration that your own conscience condemneth you herein, and that vou manner of 

^ ' t! images. 

apply all translation to your heresy ? What caused you, being otherwise 

\} Ridiculam vero in hoc loco Hebrsei narrant fabulam. Postquam 
urbs apcrta, templumque reseratum est, filiique Ammon et Moab et 
Seir ingressi sunt templum, videruntque Cherubim protegentia pro- 
pitiatorium, dixerunt: Sicut cunctse gentes colunt simulacra, ita 
et Juda habet suse religionis idola. Comment. Hieronymi in Ezech. 
cap. XXV. V. 8. Opera, Vol. iii. p. 870.] 


in all places so ready to translate "images," yet Esai. xxxi. and Zachar. 
xiii. to translate " idols" in all your bibles with full consent ? Why in 
these places specially and so advisedly ? No doubt, because God saith 
there, speaking of this time of the New Testament, " In that day every 
man shall cast out his idols of silver and idols of gold :" and, " I will 
destroy the names of the idols out of the earth, so that they shall no 
more be had in remembrance." In which places if you had translated 
" images," you had made the prophecy false ; because images have not 
been destroyed out of the world, but are and have been in christian 
countries with honour and reverence even since Christ's time. Marry, in 
the idols of the gentiles we see it verified, which are destroyed in all 
the world, so far as gentility is converted to Christ. 

FuLKE, 6. Fulke. Verily the commandment of God, being a com- 
mandment of the first table, unto which whatsoever is said 
in the scriptures of images, or the worship of them forbidden, 
must be referred, speaketh generally of all manner of images 
made by the device of man for any use of religion, whether 
they be of Jews, pagans, or false Christians. But we are 
offered a demonstration, that our own conscience condemneth us 
herein, and that we apply all translations to our heresy. And 
that is this : in Esai. xxxi. and Zachar. xiii. with one con- 
sent all translate " idols," because God speaketh of the time 
of the New Testament, where if they had translated "images," 
they " had made the prophecy false, because images in chris- 
tian countries are with honour, but idols of the gentiles are 
destroyed out of the world so far as gentility is converted 
to Christ." A goodly demonstration, I promise you ! That 
the translators had no such respect, it is plain; for that- 
they do not understand the xxxi. of Esaias of the time of 
Christ, but of the reformation made by Ezechias. But 
in Esai. xhv., which is a manifest prophecy of the church of 
Christ, they all use the word "image;" also Micheas the v. 
and in divers other places, where the destruction of idolatry 
is prophesied by the religion of Christ, which is verified 
only in true Christians ; for otherwise both idolatry of pagans 
and of false Christians hath remained in many places, and 
yet remaineth to this day. 

]\Iartin,7. Martin. And what were the pagan idols or their idolatry? St Paul 
Rom. i. telleth us, saying : " They changed the glory of the incorruptible God 
the iiiois of into the similitude of tlie image of a con-uptible man, and of birds and 
t e agans. -^^^r^^^^^ g^j^jj creeping things, and tliey served (or worshipped) the creature 
more than the Creator." Doth he charge them for making the image of 


man or beast ? Yourselves have hanging's and cloths full of such pauit- 
ings and embroidermgs of imagery. Wherewith then are they charged ? 
"With giving the glory of God to such creatures, which was to make them 
idols, and themselves idolaters. 

Fulke. That the pagans changed the glory of God Fulke, 7. 
into the siniihtude of the image of man, &c. it was the 
extremity of their madness ; but that they made images of 
man or beast, if you will not confess that Jupiter, Mars, &c. 
were men, and Isis a cow or beast, yet remember that they made 
images of their emperors, and committed idolatry to them : 
otherwise, to make images out of relio-ion was not the offence 
of idolatry in them nor us, that have them in hangmgs, 
and paintings, and other lawful images. 

Martin. The case being thus, why do you make it two distinct things Martin, 8. 
in St Paul, calling the pagans " idolaters," and the Christians doing the i Cor. v. 

' . f „ ° Bib. 1502. 

same " worshippers of images,' and that in one sentence, whereas the 
apostle useth but one and the selfsame Greek word in speaking both of 
pagans and Christians ? It is a marvellous and wilful corruption, and 
well to be marked ; and therefore I will put down the whole sentence 
as in your English translation : " I wrote to you that you should not 
company Avith fornicators; and I meant not at all of the fornicators of this 
world, either of the covetous, or extortioners, either the idolaters, &c., elSwXoXd. 
but that ye company not together, if any that is called a brother be a "^1°""- 
fornicator, or covetous, or a worshipper of images, or an extortioner." 
In the first, speaking of pagans, your translator nameth "idolater" ac- 
cording to the text ; but in the latter part, speaking of Christians, you 
translate the very selfsame Gi-eek word " worshipper of images." Why elScoXoXd- 
so ? Forsooth, to make tlie reader think that St Paul speaketh here not '^i°''** 
only of pagan idolaters, but also of catholic Christians that reverently 
kneel in prayer before the cross, the holy rood, the images of our Saviour 
Christ and his saints, as though the apostle had commanded such to 
be avoided. 

Fulhe. The reason is, because we count idolaters and Fulke, 8. 
worshippers of images to be all one. But "it is a marvellous 
wilful corruption," that in one sentence, 1 Cor. \., we call 
the pagans idolaters, and the Christians worsliippers of images, 
and yet the same Greek word in both. If tliis were a 
fault, it were but of one translation of the three, for the 
Geneva Bible hath "idolater" in both, the other "worshipper 
of idols" in the latter place. And we think the latter to 
be understood of idolatrous papists, which worship idols made 
with hands of men, as crosses, roods, and other images, to 


as great dishonour of God and danger of their souls as 
pagans did. So that if it had been "worshippers of images" 
in both, the translation had not been amiss. 

Martin, 9. Martin. Where if you have yet the face to deny this your mahcious 
and heretical intent, tell us why all these other words are translated and 
repeated alike in both places, " covetous," " fornicators," " extortioners," 
both i^agans and Christians, and only this word " idolaters " not so, but 
pagans " idolaters," and Christians " worshippers of images." At the least 
you cannot deny but it was of purpose done to make both seem all one, 
yea, and to signify that the Christians doing the foresaid reverence before 
sacred images (which you call worshipping of images) are more to be 
avoided than the pagan idolaters : whereas the apostle, speaking of 
pagans and Christians that committed one and the selfsame heinous sin 
whatsoever, commandeth the Christian in that case to be avoided for his 
amendment, leaving the pagan to himself and to God, as having not to do 
to judge of him. 

FuLKE, 9. Fulke. I think the cause was, that Christians might 
understand who was an idolater, and what the word "idolater" 
signifieth, which was used in the former part of the sentence. 
And if the translator's purpose was by this exphcation to 
dissuade the readers from worshipping of popish images, I 
see not what cause he hath to be ashamed thereof, seeing 
the Greek word signifieth as much as he saith : not as 
though idols were proper only to the gentiles, and images 
to Christians; for in other places he useth the name of images, 
speaking both of the pagans and the Christians, 1 Cor, viii. 
Although for my part, I could wish he had used one word 
in both places, and either called them both idolaters or 
both worshippers of images. 

Martin, Martin. But to this the answer belike will be made, as one of them 

.• hath already answered in the like case, that in the English bible ap- 

Confuiat.'of pointed to be read in their churches it is otherwise, and even as we 

let,™oi. 35." would have it corrected ; " and therefore," saith he, " it had been good 
before we entered into such heinous accusations, to have examined our 
grounds that they had been true." As though we accuse them not truly 
of false translation, unless it be false in that one bible which for the 
present is read in their churches ; or as though it pertained not to them 
how their other English bibles be translated ; or as though the people 
read not all indifferently without prohibition, and may be abused by 
every one of them ; or as though the bible which now is read (as we 

Bib. 1577. think) in their churches, have not the like absurd translations, yea, 
o . 111. 5. jjjQj.g ai^gurd, even in this matter of images, as is before declared ; or as 


though we must first learn what English translation is read in their 
cliurch (which were hard to know, it changeth so oft), before we may be 
bold to accuse them of false translation ; or as though it were not the 
same bible that was for many years read in their churches, and is yet in 
every man's hands, which hath this absurd translation whereof we have 
last spoken. 

Fidke. Mine answer was framed to Howlet's reason, Fulke, 
who would prove that our service was naught, because the ^^' 
scriptures were therein read in false and shameless transla- 
tions, example of which he bringeth, 1 John v.: " Children, 
keep yourselves from images," To whom mine answer was 
apt, when I said, "In the Bible appointed to be read in the 
service it is otherwise," and as ho himself saith it ought to 
be ; which answer as though it were made to the general 
accusation of our translations, you with many supposings, as 
though this, as though that, would make it seem to be un- 
sufficient; whereas, to Howlet's cavil, it was not only sufficient, 
but also proper. And therefore tliis is a vain supposal, "as > 
though we accuse them not truly of false translation, unless 
it be false in that one bible which for the present is read 
in their church." For we grant you not the other to be 
false, because this is true, and so are all the rest. "As though 
it pertained not to them how their other Enghsh bibles be 
translated." It pertaineth so far that, if there were a fault 
in the former, we have amended it in the latter. But in 
that text, for which I answered, I acknowledge yet no fault, 
neither is that mine only answer ; for I prove that "image" 
and "idol" with the apostle signifieth the same tiling. "Or as 
though the people read not all without proliibition, and may 
be abused by every one of them." There is no such false 
translation in any of them, that the people can be abused 
thereby to run into heresy. Yet again : "Or as though the 
bible, wliich now is read (as we think), have not the like 
absurd translations, yea, more absurd, even in this matter 
of images, as is declared before." As though you have proved 
whatsoever you prate of. Once again : " Or as though we 
must first learn, what Enghsh translation is read in their 
church (which were hard to know, it changeth so often), 
before we may be bold to accuse them of false translation." 
If you will accuse that translation which is read in our 
ehurch, as Howlet doth, reason would you should first learn 


which it is; and that is no hard matter, seeing there was 
never more appointed than two, as oft as you say we change. 
"Or, (at last,) as though it were not the same bible, that was 
for many years read in their churches, and is yet in every 
man's hands, which hath tliis absurd translation, whereof 
we last spake." As though I could prophesy, when I an- 
swered Howlet for the bible appointed to be read in the 
church, in 1 John v., that you would find fault with an- 
other text in that translation, that sometime was read in 
the church, and yet is in many men's hands : which, 
although it be well altered in that point, which you quarrel 
at, in the two later translations, yet I see no absurdity in 
the first, which for one Greek word giveth two English 
words, both of one signification, yea, and the latter being 
plainer, exphcating the former, which to English ears is 
more obscure and less understood. 

Martin, Martin. Surely the bible that we most accuse, not only in this point, 

^^* but for sundry other most gross faults and heretical translations, spoken 

Bib. 1562. of in other places, is that bible which was authorised by Crannier, their 
archbishop of Canterbury, and read all king Edward's time in their 
churches, and (as it secmeth by the late printing thereof again, anno 
15li2) a great part of this queen's reign. And certain it is, that it was 
so long read in all their churches with this venomous and corrupt trans- 
lation of "images" always instead of " idols," that it made the deceived 
people of their sect to despise, contemn, and abandon the very sign and 
image of their salvation, the cross of Christ, the holy rood, or crucifix, 
representing the manner of his bitter passion and death, the sacred 
images of the blessed virgin Mary, the mother of God, and of St John 
John xix. 26. Evangelist, representing their standing by the cross at the very time of 
his passion. Insomuch that now by experience we see the foul incon- 
venience thereof, to wit, that all other images and pictures of infamous 
harlots and heretics, of heathen tyrants and persecutors, are lawful in 
England at this day, and their houses, parlours, and chambers, are 
garnished with them; only sacred images, and representations of the 
holy mystery of our redemption, are esteemed idolatrous, and have been 
openly defaced in most spiteful manner, and burned, to the great dis- 
honour of our Saviour Christ and his saints. 

FuLKE, Fulke. That bible perhaps you misHke more than the 

^^' other translations, because archbishop Cranmer allowed it 

by his authority. But howsoever it be, (as I think there be 

more imperfections in it than in the other,) it is not your 

accusation, without due and substantial proof, that can make 


it less esteemed with any indifferent or wise man. If it 
have caused the people to contemn and abandon all popish 
idols, there is cause that we should give God thanks for it. 
Albeit not the translation only, but preaching of the gospel, 
and Christ crucified especially, by which Christ hath been 
truly and Uvely painted forth unto them, and even crucified 
among them, hath made them contemn, yea, and abhor all 
carnal and human devices of the image of our salvation, 
or representation of his passion by vain and dead images, 
to be any helps of faith, rehgion, or the worship of God. 
Where you say it is "seen by experience, that all other images 
of infamous harlots and heretics, of heathen tyrants and 
persecutors, are lawful in England, to garnish houses, when 
sacred images are esteemed idolatrous, defaced, and burned," 
I know not well your meaning. For if you have any true 
images of the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, or other holy 
persons, I think they be as lawful to garnish private houses 
as the other you speak of. Yea, the stories of the whole 
bible painted, both of the Old Testament and the New, are 
not forbidden, but in many places used : provided always, that 
in the places appointed for the public service of God such things 
are not lawful, for danger of idolatry, nor in private places to 
to be abused, as they are of papists ; but rather, though they 
were as ancient and as goodly monuments as the brasen 
serpent was, which no images at this day can be, it is to the 
great honour of God that they should be despised, defaced, 
burned, and stamped to powder, as that was, which sometime 
was erected by the commandment of God, by which not only 
great miracles were wrought, but the wonderful mystery of 
our salvation through faith in Christ was prefigured. 

Martin. And as concerning the bible that at this day is read in their Martin, 
churches, if it be that of the year 1577, it is worse sometime in this ^'^• 
matter of images than the other. For where the other readeth " covet- Coi. iii. 5. 
ousness, which is worshipping of idols," there this latter (whereunto 
they appeal) readeth thus: " covetousness, which is worshipping of 
images." And Ephes. v. it readeth as absurdly as the other : " A w. Fuike, 
covetous man, which is a worshipper of images'." Lo, this is the En- S!"^"'' '°'' 

P "Covetousness, which is worshipping of images," edit. 1568. 
"Covetousness, which is idolatry," 1579. Col. iii. 5. "A covetous per- 
son, which is a worshipper of images," Ephes. v. 5. edit. 1568. "Nor 
covetous person, which is an idolater," edit. 1579.] 


Foi. 3n. glish bible, which they refer us unto, as better translated and as correcting 
the fault of the former. But because it is evident by these places, that 
this also is partly worse and partly as ill as the other, therefore this 
great confuter of master John Howlet fleeth once more to the Geneva 
English bible, saying, " Thus we read," and, " so we translate ;" to wit, 
*' A covetous person, which is an idolater." Where shall we have these 
good fellows, and how shall we be sure that they will stand to any of 
their translations ? From the first read in their churches they flee to 
that that is now read, and from this again to the later Geneva English 
bibles, neither read in their churches (as we suppose,) nor of greatest 
authority among them ; and we doubt not but they will as fast flee from 
this to the former again, when this shall be proved in some places more 
false and absurd than the other. 

FuLKE, Fulke. It pleaseth you worse, perhaps, that less favour- 

eth your pelting distinction of images and idols; but it is never 
the worse to be liked of them that be wise and learned, 
which know that e'lKwv and eilwkov in Greek do signify 
the same thing, which you cannot deny. And where you 
say, in your scornful mood, " Lo, this is the bible, which 
they refer us unto, as better translated and as correcting 
the fault of the former," you follow your accustomed vein of 
lying. For I acknowledge no fault of the former in this 
point of images, but confute the frowardness of that foohsh 
reason, which accuseth our service of reading the bible in 
. shameless translations, in that text, 1 John v. ; whereas in 
the bible appointed for the service it is not as he saith, 
but even as he would have us to say. I fly not therefore 
(as it pleaseth your wisdom to say) from that translation 
also to the Geneva bible, neither do I allege the Geneva 
translation for that cause you pretend, but to shew, that 
albeit we translate in such words as you cannot mislike, 
yet your venomous slandering pens and tongues can never 
give over your peevish quarrelling. In the place by you 
quoted, I defend both as true, and answerable to the Greek, 
and of one sense and meaning, where the sound of words 
only is diverse, the signification of matter one and the same. 
And yet you must have your foolish flourish in rope-ripe 
terms: "Where shall we have these good fellows," &c.? You 
shall have us, by the grace of God, ready to justify all 
our translation from shameless falsification and heretical 
corruptions, which is your impudent charge against us. And 


if ill matter of lesser moment you can descry the least 
error in any or in all of our translations, we shall be 
willing to confess the same, and ready to reform it. For 
truth is dearer to us than credit ; although we think it 
better credit to reform a fault, than, being admonished, 
wUfully to continue it or defend it. 

Martin. But what matter is it how thev read in their churches, or Martin, 

' 13 

how they correct their former translations by the later ; when the old 

corruption remaineth still, being set of purpose in the top of every 
door within their churches, in these words : " Babes, keep yourselves i John v. 
from images*"? Wliy remaineth that Avritten so often and so con- 
spicuously in the walls of their churches, which in their bibles they 
correct as a fault 1 Their later bibles say, " Keep yourselves from idols :" 
their church walls say, " Keep yourselves from images." St John, 
speaking to the lately-converted gentiles, biddeth them beware of the 
idols from whence they were converted : they, speaking to the old- 
instructed Christians, bid them beware of the sacred image of Christ 
our Saviour, of the holy crucifix, of the cross, of every such represen- 
tation and monument of Christ's passion and our redemption. And 
therefore in the very same place where these holy monuments were 
wont to stand in catholic times, to wit, in the rood-loft and partition 
of the church and chancel, there now stands these words as confronting 
and condemning the foresaid holy monuments : " Babes, keep yourselves 
from images." Wliich words whosoever esteemeth as the words of 
scripture, and the words of St John, spoken against Christ's image, 
is made a very babe indeed, and sottishly abused by tlieir scribbled 
doors and false translations, to count that idolatry, which is indeed to 
no other purpose, than to the great honour of him whose image and 
picture it is. 

Fulke. Still you harp on the old untuneable string, Fulke, 
that the former is a corruption, which saitli, " Babes, keep ^''^• 
yom^selves from images ;" wliich sentence sore grieveth you, 
to be wi'itten in the top of chm'ch doors, or in place where 
the rood-loft stood. And you ask why it remaineth on 
the walls, which we correct as a fault in the bibles ? But 
who told you that they correct it as a fault in the bibles? 
Is every alteration with you a correction? The one ex- 
phcateth the other, that idols of wliich St John speaketh 
be images abused in religion. Not that all images be idols, 
(as the word idol in the English speech is taken,) nor that 
all idols be images, but as images that are worshipped. But 

r* TfKvi'a, (fivKa^are eavrovs airo tS>v el8(oXa>u. 1 John v. 21.'] 


St John (you say), speaking to the converted gentiles, bid- 
deth them beware of the idols, from whence they were 
converted. That is true, but not only from them, but from 
all other idols. Except perhaps you think, that Christians 
by that text should not abhor the images of Simon Magus, 
and Selene, and the images of the Valentinians, and Gnosticks, 
and other hereticks, which worshipped the image of Christ 
irenaus, lib. and of St Paul, as Irenaeus^ and Epiphanius^ do testify. And 

1. cap. 20. . . . „ 

23,24. it seemeth, you so think m deed. For you say soon after, 

Epiphanius, .^_^ '' t' i/ ' 

II h' 2^°""" "Whosoever esteemeth those words as the words of scripture 
(if images be put for idols,) spoken against Christ's image, 
is made a very babe." Such babes were Irenaeus and Epipha- 
nius, that they condemned tliis worshipping of images for 
heresy. Such a babe was Epiphanius, that finding the image 
of Christ painted in vail hangmg in a church at Anablatha, 
he judged it to be contrary to the scriptures, and rent it 
in pieces. Such a babe was Tertullian^, that, speaking of 
that very text of St John, " Little cliildren, keep yourselves 
from idols," he writeth : Non jmn ah idololatria quasi ah 
officio, sed ah idolis, id est, ah ipsa effigie eorum. Indignum 
enim ut imago Dei vivi imago idoli et Tnortui fiat. " He 
biddeth them take heed, not now from idolatry, as from 
the service, but from the idols themselves, that is to say, 
from the very images or shapes of them. For it is un- 
worthy that the image of the living God should be made 
the image of an idol, and that being dead."" Finally, such 
a babe was your vulgar translator, that he saith : Filioli, 

\} Contemnere autem et idolothyta, et nihil arbitrari, sed sine 
aliqua trepidatione uti eis: habere autem et reliquarum operationum 
usum indifFerentem, et universae libidinis. Utuntur autem et hi ma- 
gia, et imaginibus, et incantoribus, et invocationibus, et reliqua uni- 
versa periergia: nomina quoque qusedam affingentes quasi angelorum, 
annuntiant hos quidem esse in primo coelo, hos autem in secundo; et 
deinceps nituntur CCCLXV. ementitorum coelorum et nomina, et prin- 
cipia, et angelos, et virtutes exponere. Irenaei, Lib. i. cap. 23. Opera, 
p. 102. edit. Venet. 1734.] 

r^ Ti Se aKKo rj Tvavav app-qrovpylav Kai ttjv ddefiirop Trpa^cv rjv ov 
OejiiTov eVi (TTopLaros (pepeiv, ovtoi TrpdrTovcn ; Koi irav ei8os av8po- 
/Sacriwj/, Koi XayvicrTepoiP 6p,i\iav npos yvvaiKas iv eKacrra fiepei croofia- 
Tos, p.ay€ias re <cai (fiapfxaKfias Koi eiScoXoXarpei'aj eKTeXovvra. Epiphan. 
adv. Haer. Lib. i. Tom. ii. 27. Opera, p. 105. edit. Paris. 1622.] 

P De Corona, edit, de la Cerda. p. 678.] 


custodite vos a simulacris, wliich is all one, as if he should 
have said ah imaginibus, (as I have plentifully proved,) 
" Children, keep yourselves from images." As for the pur- 
pose you pretend to have in honouring Christ by images, 
contrary to his commandment, is indeed nothing but dis- 
honouring of him and destruction of yourselves. 

Martin. But the gay confuter with whom I began, saith for further Martin, 
answer, "Admit that in some of our translations it be, 'Children, ^'^• 
keep yourselves from images,' (for so he would have said, if it were foi' 35_ ^' 
truly printed) what great crime of corruption is here committed?" 
And when it is said again, this is the crime and fault thereof, that they 
mean by so translating to make the simple believe that idols and images 
are all one, which is absurd ; he replieth, " that it is no more absurdity, 
than instead of a Greek word to use a Latin of the same signification." 
And ui)on this position he granteth that, according to the property of 
the Greek word, a man may say, " God made man according to his Gen. i. 
idol," and that generally idoluni may as tnily be translated an " image," kutu t-ijV 
as Tyrannus, a "king," (which is very true, both being absurd;) and '^"^"'^"' 
here he cited many authors and dictionaries idly, to prove that idolum e'lSwXov. 
may signify the same that image. eiKwv. 

Fulke. But tliis scornful replier, with whom I have Fulke, 
to do, is so accustomed to false and unlionest dealing, that 
he can never report any thing that I have written truly ,- 
and as I have written, but with one forgery or another he 
will clean corrupt and pervert my saying. As here he 
shameth nothing to affii*m, that I grant that, according to 
the property of the Greek word, a man may say, God made 
man according to liis idol. I will report mine own words, 
by which every man may perceive how honestly he dealeth 
with me : 

" But admit that in some translation it be as you say, 
' Cliildi'en, keep yourselves from images :' what great crime 
of corruption is here committed? You say, that it is to 
make simple men beUeve that idols and images are all one, 
wliich is absurd. Tliis is no more absurdity, than instead 
of a Greek word to use a Latin of the same signification. 
But you reply, that then, where Moses saith that God made 
man according to his own image, we should consequently 
say, that God made man according to his idol. I answer, 
howsoever the name of idols in the English tongue, for the 
great dishonour that is done to God in worshipping of images, 



is become so odious that no christian man would say, that 
God made man according to Ms idol, no more than a good 
subject would call his lawful prince ' a tyrant,' yet according 
to the Greek word, e'lSwXov may be as truly translated an 
image, as rvpawos a king." 

Here, if I were disposed to give the rein to affection, 
as you do often, being unprovoked by me, were sufficient 
occasion offered to insult against your falsehood. But I 
will forbear, and in plain words tell you, that if you be 
so simple, that you cannot understand the difference of these 
two propositions, ei^wXou, wheresoever it is read in Greek, 
may be truly translated "an image;" and this, wheresoever 
the word image is used in Enghsh, you may use the word 
idol; you are mimeet to read a divinity lecture in England, 
howsoever you be advanced in Rhemes, If not of ignorance, 
but of malice, you have perverted both my words and 
meaning, let God and all godly men be judge between you 
and me. My words are not obscure nor ambiguous, but 
that every child may understand my meaning to be no more 
but this, that this English word idol is by use restrained 
only to wicked images. The Greek word eiSooXov signifieth 
generally all images, as Tvpai>vo<; did all kings, imtil kings, 
that were so called, became hateful for cruelty, which caused 
even the name tyrannus to be odious. 

Mahtin, Martin. But I beseech you. Sir, if the dictionaries tell you that 

6t'S&)Xoz/ may, by the original property of the word, signify " an image," 
(which no man denieth,) do they tell you also, that you may commonly 
and ordinarily translate it so, as the common usual signification thereof 1 
or do they tell you that " image" and " idol" are so all one, that where- 
soever you find this word " image," you may truly call it " idol " ? For 
these are the points that you should defend in your answer. For an 
Rom viii example, do they teach you to translate in these places thus ? " God 
iinagini. j^g^^^^ predestinated us to be made conformable to the idol of his Son." 
1 Cor. XV. And again, " As we have borne the idol of the earthly (Adam,) so 
2Cor. iii. let US bear the idol of the heavenly" (Christ). And again, "We are 
transfonned into the same idol, even as our Lord's spirit." And again, 
Heb. X. "The law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very 

Col. i. idol of the things." And again, " Christ who is the idol of the invisible 

God." Is this, I pray you, a true translation ? Yea, say you, according 
to the property of the word : but " because the name of idols in the 
English tongue, for the great dishonour done to God in worshipping 
of images, is become odious, no christian man would say so." 

2 Cor. iv. 


Fulke. No man denieth (you say) that e'lSwXov may, Fulke, 
by the original propriety of the word, signify an image. ' 
It is well, that being convicted by all dictionaries, old and 
new, you will at length yield to the truth. But you demand, 
whether the dictionaries do tell me that I may commonly 
and ordinarily translate it so, as the common usual signifi- 
cation thereof. Sir, I meddle only with the translations of 
the scripture ; and the dictionaries tell me that so it usually 
signifieth, and therefore so I may translate in the scripture, 
or any other ancient Greek writer, that useth the word 
according to the original propriety thereof. Peradventure 
some later Greek writers, restraming it only to wicked images, 
may so use the term, as the general signification thereof 
will not agree to the meaning in some odd place or other. 
But that is no matter to plead against our translation of 
the scripture, when in that time it was written the word 
was indifferent, to signify any image. Further than this, 
you ask of me, if the dictionaries do tell me, that image 
and idol are all one, and wheresoever I find the word imago, 
I may truly call it idol ? JSTo, forsooth. Sir, they teach 
me no such thing : neither do I say that the word image 
and idol may be confounded ; but the clean contrary, if 
your mastership had not mistaken me, because it was not 
your pleasure to take me either according to my words, or 
according to my meaning. Why, Sir, " these are the points 
you should defend in your answer : for an example, do 
they teach you to translate in these places thus, 'God hath 
predestinated us to be made conformable to the idol of liis 
Son'? and again, 'We have borne the idol of the earthly,' 
&:c," I pray you, Su', pardon me to defend that I never 
said nor thought : you yourself confess in the end, that I 
say, that no christian man would say so : wherefore when 
you say that I afiirm, this is a true translation according 
to the propriety of the word ; can I say less ? Then you 
lie lilvo a popish hypocrite. 

Martin. First, note how foolishly and unadvisedly he speaketh here, Martin, 
because he would confound images and idols, and make them falsely ^^• 
to signify one thing: when he saith the name of "idol" is become odious 
in the English tongue because of worshipping of images, he should 
have said, the dishonour done to God in worshipping idols made the 


name of idols odious. As in his own example of " tyrant" and " king," 
he meant to tell us that "tyrant" sometime was an usual name for 
every king ; and because certain such tyrants abused their power, there- 
fore the name of tyrant became odious. For he will not say, I trow, 
that for the fault of kings the name of tyrant became odious. Likewise 
the Romans took away the name of Manlius for the crime of one Man- 
lius, not for the crime of John at Nokes, or of any other name. The 
name of Judas is so odious, that men now commonly are not so called. 
Why so ? because he that betrayed Christ was called Judas ; not because 
he was also Iscariot. The very name of " ministers" is odious and con- 
temptible. Why ? because ministers are so lewd, wicked, and unlearned ; 
not because some priests be naught. Even so the name of " idol" grew 
to be odious, because of the idols of the GentUes, not because of holy 
images. For if the reverence done by Christians to holy images were 
evil, (as it is not,) it should in tliis case have made the name of images 
odious, and not the name of idols. But, God be thanked ! the name of 
images is no odious name among catholic Christians, but only among 
heretics and image-breakers, such as the second general councU of Nice 
hath condemned therefore with the sentence of anathema : no rnore than 
the cross is odious, which to all good Christians is honourable, because 
our Saviour Christ died on a cross. 

FuLKE, Fulke. Nay, first note how falsely, and then how 

foohshly, and yet how impudently, he continueth a slander 
against me of his own devising, that I would confound 
those Enghsh words, "images" and "idols." For first he will 
teach me to speak EngUsh, that where I said the name of 
idol is become odious in the Enghsh tongue, because of 
worshippiug of images, I should have said, "the dishonour 
done to God in worshipping of idols made the name of 
idols odious." And what, I pray you, were those idols, the 
worsliipping of which made the name odious, but images? 
May I not be so bold, mider your correction, to use the 
general name images, which you say are not idols, until 
they be abused ? When the image of Jupiter, king of Crete, 
was first made, and nothing else done unto it, would you 
call it an image, or an idol ? Sure I am, you called the 
brasen serpent first an image, and then an idol. Even 
so I trust I may, without offence of Enghshmen, say, that 
the abuse of images, called first without note of infamy 
ei^wXa, " idols," made the name of idols to be odious, and 
therefore not appHed, but to such abused images : and the 
example I brought of tyramvus, which first did signify 
a king, is very plain and like, but that you are disposed 


to play the peevish quarreller. And trow you, I will not 
say, that for the fault of kings the name of tyrant became 
odious ? Yes, verily, I will not spare to say, and so I said 
before, that for the fault of such cruel kings, as were called 
tyranni, though the name itself first signified not so, that 
name of tyrant became odious. As for your fombhtudes^ 
of ManHus and Judas, two proper names, compared with 
image, and idol, king, and tyrant, which be common names, 
I will not vouchsafe to answer them. But the name of 
" ministers'" (you say) is odious, for the faults of ministers, 
and not for the faults of priests. Popish priests are odious 
enough for their own faults ; so that they need not be 
charged unjustly with the faults of our evil ministers : wliich 
I would wish were fewer than they be ; but I trust there 
are not so many evU of them, as your popish priests have 
been, and are daily found to be. And whosoever of our 
ministers hath been found worst, I think there may be 
found, not a priest, but a pope, of your side as evU, or 
worse than he. But if reverence done by papists, (which 
you call Christians,) to images had been evil, (say you,) it 
should have made the name of images odious also.- No, 
Su% that followeth not, so long as that reverence was ac- 
counted good and lawful; and now that it is found to be 
abominable, the people having the other odious word of idols 
in use, need not abandon the name of images, except they 
had another to signify lawful and good images. The curse 
of the idolatrous Council of Nice the second, no christian 
man regardeth, which knoweth that by God's own mouth 
in the scriptures aU makers and worshippers of idolatrous 
images are accursed. 

Martin . But to omit this man's extraordinary and unadvised speeches. Ma rti n , 
which be too many and too tedious, (as when he saith in the same sentence, 
" Howsoever the name ' idol ' is grown odious in the English tongue," 
as though it were not also odious in the Latin and Greek tongues, but 
that in Latin and Greek a man might say according to his fond opinion, 
fecit hominem ad idolum suum, and so in the other places, where is irnago,) 
to omit these rash assertions, I say, and to return to his other words, 
where he saith, that though the original property of the words hath 

[^ Danish, famler, to hesitate, stammer, falter : this word of Fulke's 
is deduced from fumble. Or is it a misprint for similitudes ?] 


that signification, yet "no christian man would say, that God made 
man according to his idol, no more than a good subject would call his 
lawful prince a tyrant :" doth he not here tell us that which we would 
have, to wit, that we may not speak or translate according to the origi- 
nal property of the word, but according to the common, usual, and 
accustomed signification thereof? As we may not translate Phalaris 
tyrannus, "Phalaris the king," as sometime tyrannus did signify, and 
in ancient authors doth signify ; but " Phalaris the tyrant," as now this 
word tyrannus is commonly taken and understood : even so we may 
Ab idoiis. ^ot uow translate, " My children, keep yourselves from images," as the 
diro Twv el- word may, and doth sometime signify, according to the original pro- 
1 Joh. V. perty thereof; but we must translate, " Keep yourselves from idols," 
according to the common use and signification of the word in vulgar 
speech, and in the holy scriptures. Where the Greek word is so noto- 
riously and usually peculiar to idols, and not unto images, that the holy 
fathers of the second Nicene council (which knew right well the signi- 
fication of the Greek word, themselves being Grecians) do pronounce 
anathema to all such as interpret those places of the holy scripture, 
that concern idols, of unages, or against sacred images, as now these 
Calvinists do, not only in their commentaries upon the holy scriptures, 
but even in their translations of the text. 

FuLKE, Fulke. We cannot yet be rid of this man's extraordinary 

^'^- and imadvised surmises, which are too many and tedious; 

as where I say the name idol is odious in the EngUsh 
tongue, he gathereth, that I mean it to be odious only in 
the Enghsh tongue, and not in the Latin and Greek. I have 
shewed before, that m TuUy's time it was not odious in 
Latin ; and it is not long since Master Martin confessed the 
Greek word, according to the original propriety, to signify as 
generally as e'lKwu, " an image," wliich is not odious. Although 
in later times, among Christians, both of the Greek and the 
Latin church, the name of idolum became odious, as well 
as the word ' idol' in Enghsh. Therefore it is not my fond 
opinion, but M. Martin's foohsh collection, that a man may 
say in Latin, fecit hominem ad idolum suum : and yet I 
am charged with rash assertions, when nothing is reproved 
that I affirm, but that which he himself doth imagine. 

But now you will retm^n to those words of mine, where 
I say, that though the original propriety of the words ,hath 
that signification, yet no christian man would say, that 
God made man according to liis idol, no more than a good 
subject would call his lawful prince a tyrant. These words, 
you say, do tell us, that we may not speak or translate 


according to the original propriety of the word, but ac- 
cording to the common, usual, and accustomed signification 
thereof. For speaking, I grant, as the words are used in 
our time : but for translating, I say you must regard how 
the words were used in time of the writer, whose works 
you translate. As if you would translate out of Euripides, 
Th yrj<i Tvpavvo<i, would you say, " Who is tyrant of this 
land"? or rather, "Who is king"? or in Aristophanes, Z^ca 
dewv Tvpavvov, would you translate, " Jupiter, tyrant of the 
gods," or "king of the gods" ? I think, not. But in St John, 
seeing at that time that he wrote eiSwXov signified an image 
generally, it may be translated an image generally ; and 
seeing he speaketh of the imlawful use of images, it may 
also be translated an idol, as the word is now taken to 
signify. How the late petty prelates of the second Nicene 
Council were disposed to use the word, to colour their 
blasphemous idolatry, it is not material. The ancient dic- 
tionaries of Suidas, Phavorinus, Hesychius, with the examples 
of Homer, Plato, and other ancient Greek authors, are of 
more credit for the true and ancient signification of that 

Martin. This then being so, that words must be translated as their IMaiitin, 
common use and signification requireth, if you ask your old question, °' 
what great crime of corruption is committed in translating, "keep your- Lococitatr. 
selves from images," the Greek being dbakav, you have answered 
yourself, that in so translating, " idol " and " image" are made to signify 
one thing, which may not be done, no more than " tyrant" and " king" 
can be made to signify all one. And how can you say then, that "this 
is no more absurdity, than instead of a Greek word to use a Latin of 
the same signification"? Are you not here contrary to yourself? are 
"idol" and "image," "tyrant" and "king," of one signification? Said 
you not, that in the English tongue " idol" is grown to another significa- 
tion than " image," as " tyrant" is grown to another signification than 
"king"? Your false translations, therefore, that in so many places 
make " idols" and " images" all one, not only forcing the word in the 
holy scriptures, but disgracing the sentence thereby, (as Ephes. v. and Eph. v. a co- 
Col, iii.) are they not in your own judgment veiy corrupt ; and, as your Is a worship- 
own consciences must confess, of a malicious intent corrupted, to disgi-ace rnd"coi!^nr ' 
thereby the church's holy images, by pretence of the holy scriptures that Ps°wor°ship!^* 
speak only of the pagans' idols ? Fmagef 

Fulke. Again I repeat, that words must, or may be Fulke, 
translated according to that signification they had in time " 




of the writer whom you translate. And to my question, 
what absurdity is it in that text of St John, for elScoXov 
to translate " image "; you answer, by that means idol and 
image are made to signify one thing. But that is not so ; 
for image signifieth more generally than idol in Enghsh, 
and " image'' answereth properly to the Greek word el^wXou, 
"idol" to the meaning of St John, that is, of wicked images; 
so that the translation is good : even as Tvpavvo9 may 
be translated " a king," generally, according to the word ; 
and if the author mean of a cruel long, it may be trans- 
lated " a tyrant." For king is a general word, applied to 
good kings and to evil, as image is to lawful and un- 
lawful images. Therefore our translations, that for e'lSooXov 
say an image, are not false, much less any mahcious cor- 
ruptions. And if the translators, in so doing, intended to 
disgrace popish images, I think they did ;well, and according 
to the meaning of the Holy Ghost; who, forbidding generally 
all images, that may be had in rehgious reverence, did not 
restrain the signification of the word e'i^oAov to the wicked 
idols of the gentiles, but left it at large, to comprehend 
all such images, and all kinds of worshipping them, as are 
contrary to the law and commandment of God. 


T1J Baa\, 
Num. xxii. 
TO dioTre- 

Martin. But of the usual and original signification of words (whereof 
you take occasion of manifold corruptions) we will speak more anon, 
if first we touch some other your falsifications against holy images ; as, 
where you affectate to thrust the word "image" into the text, when 
there is no such thing in the Hebrew or Greek, as in that notorious 
example^, 2 Par. xxxvi. (Bib. 1562.) "Carved images that were laid to 
his charge:" again, Rom. xi., " To the image of BaaP;" and Acts xix., 

^ Kai TO \oLTTa ratv Xdycoi/ 'iwaKi/x Koi to. iravra a enoiTjcrep, ovk 
l8ov ravra yeypayifiiva, &c. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 8. " Reliqua autem ver- 
borum Joakim, et abominationum ejus, quas operatus est, et quae 
inventa sunt in eo, continentur in libro Regum, &c." Vulg. " The 
rest of the acts of Jehoiakim, and his abominations wliich he did, and 
carved images that were laid to his charge, behold, they are written, 
&c." Bible 1562. "And his abominations wliich he did, and that which 
w^as found upon (found in, Authorised version) him," Geneva Bible, 

^ OLTLves OVK eKafi'^av yovv rfj BaaX. Rom. xi. 4. "Qui non 
curvaverunt genua ante Baal," Vulg. " Which have not bowed the 
knee to the image of Baal," Cranmer, Geneva, Authorised. "AVTiich 


" The image that came down from Jupiter V Where you are not content 
to understand " image" rather than " idol," but also to thrust it into the 
text, being not in the Greek, as you know very well. 

Fulke. Three places you note, where the word image Fulke, 
is tlirust into the text, being neither in the Hebrew nor 
Greek. The first, 2 Par. xxxvi. bib. 1562, which I con- 
fess is a fault, but I marvel how it crept in. For Thomas 
Matthew's Bible, wliich was printed before it, hath not that 
word, " carved images." It is reformed also in both the trans- 
lations that followed. 

The second, Romans xi., is no corruption ; for seeing you 
acknowledge that a substantive must be understood to bear 
up the feminine article; what reason is there, why we should 
not understand e'lKovi, rather than (XTYiXri, seeing it is certain 
Baal had an image that was worsliipped in his temple? 
2 Reg. X. The tliird place is Acts xix., where the word 
image is necessarily to be understood, "which fell down from 
Jupiter," as it was feigned. Hereunto Pliny beareth witness, 
Lib. XVI., cap. 40, and sheweth by whom it was made, and 
of what matter : of the like speaketh Herodianus. And the 
similitude of this image is yet to be seen in those ancient 
coins that yet remain, which were called vaol, "temples*." 
Wherefore your vulgar translation, which turneth tov ^toTre- 
Tous Jovis prolis, is not right ; and therefore is corrected 
by Isidorus Clarius, a Jove delapsi simulacri, with the 
consent of the deputies of the council of Trent. 

have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal," Bishops' bible, 

["^ OS ov yivaxTicei •n]v '^(peaicov ttoXiv vecoKopov ovcrav rrjs ij.eya.\r]s 
'Apre'/iiSoy Kai tov AioTrerovs. Acts xix. 35. " Qui nesciat Ephesiorum 
civitatem cultricem esse magna DianjE, Jovisque prolis?" Vulg. 
" And of the image which came down from heaven," Tyndale. " Of 
the image which came from heaven," Cranmer. " Of the image 
which came from Jupiter," Geneva. "And of the Qmage] which 
came down from Jupiter," Bishops' bible. "To be a worshipper of 
great Diana, and Jupiter's child," Rhemish. " And of the image 
which fell down from Jupiter," Authorised version.] 

Q* The Scholiast upon the Rhetoric of Aristotle i. 16, says, that 
vaol are eiKovoa-Tdcna, capellulae cum imagioibus inclusis. Aramianus 
Marcellinus says, that Asclepias secum semper circumferret Dese cce- 
lestis argentum breve figmentum. Such was meant by rrjv a-Krjvrjv tov 
MoXox, Acts vii. 43. Beza calls those coins vaol, which have the 


MAmiN, Martin. Of this kind of falsification is that which is crept as a 

20 • • 

leprosy throughout all your bibles, translating sculptik and conflatile, 

" graven image," " molten image," namely in the first commandment, 
eUwXov. where you know in the Greek it is "idol," and in the Hebrew such 
703 a word as signifieth only "a graven thing," not including this word 

" image ;" and you know that God commanded to make the images of 
cherubins, and of oxen in the temple, and of the brasen serpent in the 
desert ; and therefore your wisdoms might have considered, that he 
The meaning forbade uot all graven images, but such as the gentiles made and wor- 
command- shii)ped as gods : and, therefore, non fades tibi sculntile, concurreth with 
cerning false those words that go before, " Thou shalt have none other gods but me." 
|ravei"idois. For SO to have an image as to make it a God, is to make it more than 
an image ; and therefore, when it is an idol, as were the idols of the 
gentiles, then it is forbid by this commandment. Otherwise, when the 
The cross in cross stood many years upon the table in the queen's chapel, was it 
chapeK^"* against this commandment? or was it idolatry in the queen's majesty 
and her counsellors, that appointed it there, being the supreme head of 
your church ? Or do the Lutherans, your pue-fellows, at this day com- 
mit idolatry against this commandment, that have in their churches the 
Images in the crucifix, and the holy images of the mother of God, and of St John 
churches. the evangelist? Or if the whole story of the gospel concerning our 
Saviour Clu'ist were drawn in pictures and images in your churches, 
as it is in many of ours, were it, trow you, against this commandment ? 
Fie, for shame ! that you should thus with intolerable impudence and 
deceit abuse and bewitch the ignorant people, against your own know- 
ledge and conscience. For wot you not, that God many times expressly 
forbade the Jews both marriages and other conversation with the gen- 
1 Kings ii. tiles, lest they might fall to worship their idols, as Salomon did, and 
as the Psalm reporteth of them? This then is the meaning of the 
commandment, neither to make the idols of the gentiles, nor any other 
like unto them, and to that end, as did Jeroboam in Dan and Beth-el. 

FuLKE, Fulke. This is a sore complaint, that we have falsified 

the scripture, as it were with a leprosy, in translating sculp- 
tile and conflatile, "a graven" and "a molten image," and 

representation of the temple of Diana upon them, in the same way as 
others are called boves, puellae, puUi, testudines, from having those re- 
spective figures upon them. Casaubon, however, says, that though 
this is a probable conjecture, it is not satisfactory, since no one of 
the ancients mentions them by the name. A medal of this descrip- 
tion, exhibiting an octostyle temple, with the image of Diana in the 
centre, may be seen in Calmet's Dictionary, p. 342. edit. Taylor, 1833. 
Chrysostom's opinion is, that vao\ were a sort of ambrey or ciborium. 
Uoiav, (f)T](ri, paovs dpyvpoiis 'Apre'jaiSoy. kol Trots e'vi vaovs apyvpovs 
ytveadai ; 'laas (us Kifidpia piKpa. Acts xix. 24. Horn. xlii. Edit. 
Savilii. iv. 845.] 


namely in the first commandment, where there is no word 
of image or imagery ; but indeed in the second command- 
ment we translate the Hebrew wordpeseZ "a graven image." ^p2 
You say it signifieth a graven thing, not including the word 
image. I answer, you are not able to bring a place in the 
bible, where it signifieth any other graven thmg, but only 
an image : and yet it is derived of a verb, that signifieth 
to grave, or hew ; as the word p^5^7^m, Jud. iii. taken for D'^TDS 
quarries of stone, doth declare. Beside this, the word next 
following, signifying a similitude or image, sufficiently sheweth 
that it is not taken generally for any graven work, but 
for such, wherein the hkeness or simihtude of God, or any 
creature, is meant to be resembled : and the same doth also 
the Greek word ei^wXov testify. As for the cherubins, oxen, 
brasen serpent, or any thing wliich God commandeth, [it] is 
not forbidden by this precept ; but that which man maketh of 
his own head, to honour as God, or to worship God by it. 
Wherefore, very absurdly, to cloke such abominable idolatry, 
you say that this commandment, I^on fades sculptiU, doth 
concm" with those words, " Thou shalt have none other Gods 
but me." By wliich, not only two several commandments 
are confounded, but also a vain tautology committed : or else 
that added for interpretation, which is more obscure than the 
text interpreted. Touching the cross, that stood sometimes 
in the queen's chapel, whereof you speak your pleasure, as 
also of her majesty's counsellors, it is not by and by idolatry, 
whatsoever is against that commandment ; neither is the 
having of any images in the chm'ch (which are had in no 
use of religion) contrary to this commandment. And although 
we will not accuse the Lutherans of idolatry, neither can we, 
because they worship no images ; yet will we not excuse 
them for suffering of images to be in their churches, whereof 
may ensue danger of idolatry, but that in some part they go 
against this commandment, deceived in their judgment, and 
of us not to be defended m their error. After you have 
railed a fit, with 'fie for shame!' and such like rhetoric, you 
seem to make the prohibition of images none other, but such 
as the prohibition of marriage and other conversation with 
the gentiles, which was only for fear of idolatry. But when 
you can shew the like absolute commandment, to forbid mar- 
riage and conversation with the heathen, as this is for images 




in religion and worshipping of them, we may have some 
regard of your similitude : otherwise the meaning of this 
commandment is generally to forbid all images of God, and 
of his creatures, to honour God by them ; for to honour 
them as Gods is a breach of the first commandment, as 
properly as of the second. 
























All image 
and images, 
in their 

Martin. This being a thing so plain as nothing more in all the 
holy scriptures, yet your itching humour of deceit and falsehood for 
the most part doth translate still "images," "images," when the Latin, 
and Greek, and Hebrew, have divers other words, and very seldom that 
which answereth to " image.'' For when it is "image" in the Latin, 
or Greek, or Hebrew texts, your translation is not reprehended ; for 
we also translate sometimes " images," when the text of the holy scrip- 
ture requii-eth it. And we are not ignorant that there were images 
Avhich the pagans adored for their gods ; and we know that some idols 
are images, but not all images idols. But when the holy scriptures 
call them by so many names, rather than images, because they were not 
only images, but made idols; why do your translations, Uke cuckoo 
birds, sound continually "images," "images," more than "idols," or 
other words equivalent to idols, which are there meant ? 

Fiilhe. Indeed there is nothing more plain in all the 
holy scriptures, than that the worshipping of images of all 
sorts is forbidden ; but that our " itching humour of deceit 
and falsehood," (as it pleaseth you to speak,) hath corrupted the 
text, to estabhsh any false opinion of the use of images, it 
is not yet proved. But now you set upon us with thirteen 
Hebrew words, and nine Greek words at once, which we for 
the most part do translate still "images," "images :" and you 
say we "sotmd with cuckoo birds continually, 'images, images,' 
more than 'idols'" or other words equivalent to idols." How 
many times the word image is sounded, I never had care to 
seek, and now I have no leisure to number; but I am sure idols 
and idolatry, in that translation in which least, are named 
above forty or fifty times. But to a conscience guilty of 
worshipping of images, contrary to the express commandment 
of God, the very name of images must needs sound unplea- 
santly. That we have no greater change of words to answer 
so many of the Hebrew tongue, it is of the riches of that 
tongue, and the poverty of our mother language, which hath 
but two words, image and idol, and them both borrowed of 
the Latin and Greek : as for other words equivalent, we 


know not any, and we are loth to make any new words of 
that signification, except the. multitude of Hebrew words of 
the same sense coming together do sometimes perhaps seem 
to requu-e it. Therefore as the Greek hath fewer words 
to express this thing than the Hebrew, so hath the Latin 
fewer than the Greek, and the English fewest of all, as will 
appear if you would undertake to give us Enghsh words for 
the tliirteen Hebrew words : except you would coin such 
ridiculous inkhorn terms, as you do in the New Testament, 
azymes, prepuce, neophyte, sandale, parasceve, and such like. 

Martin. Two places only we will at this time ask you the reason Martin, 
of : first, why you translate the Hebrew and Greek that answereth to " " 

•^ "" Matsebah. 

statua, "image," so often as you do? Whereas this word m the said o-rtiX?;. 
tongues is taken also in the better part ; as when Jacob set up a stone Gen. xxviii. 
and erected it for a title, pourmg oil upon it ; and the prophet saith, 
" Our Lord's altar shall be in Egypt, and his title beside it." So that isai. xix. 19. 
the word doth signify generally a sign erected of good or evil, and there- 
fore might very well, if it pleased you, have some other English than 
''image." Unless you will say that Jacob also set up an image, and 
our Lord's image shall be in Egypt ; which you will not say, though you 
might with more reason than in other places. 

FulJce. Seeing you ask, why we translate the Hebrew Fulke, 
word matsebah so often an image ; it had been reason you ' 
should have told us how often we do so, or at least noted 
some place, where it cannot signify an image. We know 
the word, being derived of the verb jatsah that signifieth 
to stand, may be taken for something erected, that is no 
image, but a pillar, or (as your Latin text calleth it) a title, 
in both the places by you noted. Gen. xxviii., Esai. xix. and 
elsewhere. Gen. xxv., 2 Sam. xviii. But whensoever we 
translate it an image, the circumstance of the place so re- 
quireth, as 2 Kings x. where it is said, that Baal's images were 
taken out of his temple, broken and burnt. For they were 
images of Baal, that were worshipped in his temple, and not 
titles or pillars. Likewise, 2 Kings xvii. where it is said, 
that " the Israelites made unto themselves staiuas, images, 
and groves under every liigh hill and under every thick tree :" 
as appeareth by Ezechiel vi. where they be called gilluUm, 
idols, wliich had the simihtude of men, as Baahm and such 





Of the year 






oTi ey\v- 
\J/av auTo 
Of the year 

Martin. Secondly, we demand why your very last English bible 
hath (Esai. xxx. 22) for two Hebrew words, which aie in Latin sc7ilp- 
tilia and conflatilia, twice, " images, " " images ; " neither word being 
Hebrew for an "image," no more than if a man would ask, what is 
Latin for an "image"? and you M'ould tell him sculptile; whereupon 
he seeing a fair painted image in a table, might happily say, Ecce egre- 
gium sculptile; which every boy in the grammar school would laugh 
at. Wliich therefore we tell you, because we perceive your translations 
endeavour, and as it were afFectate, to make sculptile and " image" all 
one; which is most evidently false, and to your great confusion ap- 
peareth Abac. ii. 18', where for these words, Quid prodest sculptile, quia 
sculpsit illudfictor suus, conflatile et imaginem falsam ? which is according 
to the Hebrew and Greek, your later English translation hath, " What 
profiteth the image ? for the maker thereof hath made it an image, and 
a teacher of lies." 



FulJce. If it had said, " the graven images of sUver, and 
the molten or cast images of gold," I know not what advan- 
tage it had been to you, or loss to us. But neither word 
(you say) is Hebrew for an image. Alack ! this is poor 
sophistry, when all the world of Hebricians know, they are 
Hebrew for nothing else, but for graven or cast images, and 
by the figure synecdoche are taken generally for images, 
of what making or matter soever they be. And the question 
is not, by what art images are made, but to what use and 
how they be used, that they may be condemned for unlawful. 
Tliis I take to be the cause, why the interpreter neglected 
the difference of the Hebrew words, which sometimes is not 
observed, and in Enghsh impossible always, and unprofitable 
to be kept. As for your own conceit, whereat you think boys 
might laugh, I leave it to yourself. For if we were asked, 
what is Latin for an image, we could answer somewhat 
else than sculptile. But if a boy should ask [what] pesilim 
or massecath m this place of Esay doth signify, we would 
not answer a graven thing, or a molten tiling, lest he might 
shew us the mantel-tree of a cliimney, and a brass pot hang- 
ing over the fire, and demand further whether Esay in this 

n Tt cocpeXel yXvTTTov, on eyXvyj/av avro ; Znkacrev aiiro ^^covev^ia, 
(havTaaiav ■^evdrj, on TreTroidev 6 TrXacras eVt to TrXacrfxa avrov, tov 
TToiija-ai ei'ScoXa K(D(pd. Habakkuk ii. 18. "Quid prodest sculptile, 
quia sculpsit illud fictor suus, conflatile, et imaginem falsam? quia 
speravit in figmento fictor ejus ut faceret simulacra muta," Vulg. 
The English version is given from the Bishops' bible in loco.] 


text spake of them, and all such things as they are. But 
it is most evidently false (you say) that sculptile and image 
are all one, and this appeareth to our great confusion, Abacuc 
the second, &c. But I say, to your shame it will appear 
by this very text, that pesel and massecah signify one and 
the same thing, and that most evidently. For thus the text 
is: "What profiteth the image (pesel,) for his maker (iofsero) 
hath made it, or (as you wiU have it) hath graven it (pesalo:)" 
what followeth now, but massecah, an image ? you had rather 
say confiatile, a molten image. But then you must remem- 
ber, that the maker of it by graving made it a molten image ; 
wliich is a strange piece of work, except you will say, that 
first he did cast it, and then he did grave it : but say which 
way you will, the same image is called pesel and massecah, 
without difference. The last words are umoreh shaker, "and 
a teacher of lies ;" for which words your translation hath 
imaginem falsam, " a false image," whereas moreh never sig- 
nifieth an image. But of that afterward. 

Martin. I would every common reader were able to discern your Martin, 
falsehood in this place. First, you make sculpere sculptile, no more than 
" to make an image" : which being absurd, you know, (because the 
painter or embroiderer making an image cannot be said sculpere sculptile) 
might teach you that the Hebrew hath in it no signification of image, 
no more than sculpere can signify " to make an image ;" and therefore Sculptile. 
the Greek and the Latin precisely (for the most part) express neither T^"'""'''"'' 
more nor less than a thing graven ; but yet mean always by these words 
" a graven idol," to which signification they are appropriated by use of 
holy scripture, as simulacrum, idolum, confiatile, and sometime imago. 
In which sense of signifying " idols,'' if you also did repeat " images" 
so often, although the translation were not precise, yet it were in some 
part tolerable, because the sense were so ; but when you do it to 
bring all holy images into contempt, even the image of our Saviour 
Christ crucified, you may justly be controlled for false and heretical 

Fulke. I would " every common reader were able to dis- Fulke, 
cern"" your foolish malice in this place. For first, while you 
cavil at the etymology of the words, which the prophet re- 
gardeth not, you make him say, that the fashioner thereof 
hath graven a graven tiling, a molten thing. Secondly, 
where you say, that the Hebrew word pesel hath no signi- 
fication of an image in it, leaning to the bare derivation from 

r 1 14 

[fulke. J 


the verb pasal, you control the only use of it, which is to 
signify an image or idol, whether it be graven or molten, 
or by what workmanship soever it be made, which you con- 
fess to be the sense of it. But when we do it (you say) 
to bring all holy images into contempt, we may justly be 
controlled for false and heretical translators. First, we know 
no holy images, made with hands, at this time so accounted, 
but they are all profane and abominable idols. Secondly, 
if the translator's purpose were evil, yet so long as the words 
and sense of the original tongue will bear liim, he cannot 
justly be called a false and heretical translator, albeit he have 
a false and heretical meaning ; as you papists have in your 
late translation of the New Testament ; yet where you trans- 
late, either according to the words, or according to the sense, 
no equity can condemn you for false translators. 

IMautin, Martin. As in this very place (which is another falsehood like to 

the other) conflatile you translate " image", as you did sculptile, and so 
Hab. ii. here again in Abacuck (as before in Esay is noted) for two distinct 
words, each signifying another diverse thing from " image," you trans- 
late " images," " images." Thirdly, for imuginern falsam, " a false 
image," you translate another thing, without any necessary pretence 
either of Hebrew or Greek, avoiding here the name of "image," be- 
cause this place telleth you that the holy scripture speaketh against 
(pavTaalav folse images, or as the Greek hath, "false phantasies," or as you trans- 
\j/ev67i. j^^^^ ^j^^ Hebrew, "such images as teach lies," representing false gods 
1 Cor. viii. which are not, as the apostle saith, idolum nihil est ; and non sunt Dii 
qui manibus fiunt. Which distinction of false and true images you will 
not have, because you condemn all images, even holy and sacred also ; 
and therefore you make the holy scriptures to speak herein accord- 
ingly to your own fancy. 

FuLKE, Fulke. Seeing the prophet regardeth not the etymology 

of the words, but useth both for one and the same image, 
no, nor regardeth the matter whereof it is made, as appeareth 
in the next verse, where he calleth this idol wood and stone, 
which cannot be molten ; every reasonable man may see, that 
the word massecah doth in this place signify generally an 
image, which is made to be a teacher of lies. And whereas 
you repeat, that the two words do "signify each another 
diverse thing from image," because the one signifieth a 
graven thing, the other a molten thing, you speak without 


all shame and sense of honesty : for pesel signifieth not every 
graven, carved, or hewn tiling, but only an image. For who 
would say, that a morter or a gutter of hewn stone were in 
Hebrew to be signified by the v(OY([ pesel, or a pewter pot 
or a dish by the word massecah? Seeing the use of the 
Hebrew tongue therefore hath appropried these names only 
to images, it is great frowardness, and no learning, to quarrel 
about the etymology or derivation of them. As this name 
building, in Enghsh, is taken only for houses : as when we 
say. Here are goodly buildings; which if a man would extend 
according to the derivation, and shewing nothing else but 
walls of brick or other matter, praise them for goodly build- 
ings, he should be thought to speak strangely in our tongue, 
and yet, according to the derivation, building may signify 
anything that is builded. But for imaginem falsam, a false 
image, you charge us to "translate another thing, without any 
necessary pretence, either of Hebrew or Greek." Such af- 
firmations will make us think meanly of your knowledge in 
the Hebrew tongue. For what, I pray you, else can moreh TVj)U 
in this place signify, but a teacher ? or where is it ever taken 
for an image, as your Latin text hath, or a fantasy, as the 
Greek readeth? Turn over your dictionary and Hebrew 
concordance, and see if vou can find it used for an image 
or an idol. At leastwise, give credit to Isidorus Clarius, 
who thus writeth in his notes upon the text : Quod ait 
imaginem falsam^ in Heh. est docens, vel annuncians menda- 
cium. " That he saith a false image, in the Hebrew it is 
teaching or shewing forth a lie." The distmction you 
make of true and false images, is vain for this purpose : for 
all images that are used in religion are false, and teachers 
of falsehood, which you with Gregory say are laymen's 
books ; but what shall they teach, saith Abacuc and Jeremiah, Hab. li. 
but lies and vanity ? Where note, that Jeremiah calleth the 
image wood, by synecdoche, signifying all images made with 
hands, of any matter. Again he saith, "Every artificer is con- 
founded in his image, because it is false which he hath made;, 
and there is no breath in it." In which verse it is to be 
observed, that he useth first the word pesel, saying mippasel, ^D2Q 
and afterward nisco, for the same image made by the arti- "j^p^ 
ficer, without distinction of graving or melting, at leastwise 
for the sense, though the Avords be diverse. Even so your 



vulgar Latin translator useth sculptile, conflatile, imaginem et 
simulacrum, for one and the same thing. The scriptiu*e 
therefore telling us that all images are false, because they, 
being void of life, are set up to represent the living, it is 
not our fantasy, but the authority of God's word, that causeth 
us to reject your fantastical distinction of true and false 

Martin, Martin. Wherein you proceed so far, that when Daniel said to the 

Dan. xiv. 4. king, " I worship not idols made with hands," (el'ScoXa ;i^6t/307rot7;Ta,) 
ab. 1562. yQjj make him say thus, " I worship not things that be made with 
hands ^," leaving out the word " idols" altogether, as though he had said, 
" nothing made with hand were to be adored ;" not the ark, the propi- 
tiatory, no, nor the holy cross itself, that our Saviour shed his blood 
upon. As before you added to the text, so here you diminish and take 
from it at your pleasure. 

FuLKE, Fulhe. That "thing" is put for idol, I confess it to be 

a fault in some translations ; but in the Geneva bible it is 
reformed. Contempt of the authority of that apocryphal 
chapter (as it seemed) did breed that neghgence. Where 
you write, that he should by saying, " I worship not things 
made with hands," have denied the ark and the propitiatory 
to be worshipped, it is very true ; for neither of both was to 
be worsliipped, as they were made with hands ; but God was 
to be worshipped where they were, and those things to be 
reverently esteemed, as the sacraments of God's presence. 
As for the cross whereon Christ died, I see no cause why 
it should be worshipped, if it were to be had ; but rather, if 
it were to be worsliipped, it should be served as the brasen 
serpent was. None of the apostles made any account of it : 
Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, if there had been any 
matter of rehgion in it, might have preserved it, and not 
have suiFered it to be buried in the earth with the two other 
crosses, as the story of the invention saith, if it be true. 
At the finding whereof, Helena, as St Ambrose writeth, Begem 
adoravit, non lignum utique, quia hie gentilis est error et vanitas 

\J The story of Bel and the Dragon. " Because I may not worship 
things that be made with hands," v. 4. edit. 1568. " Because I may 
not worship idols made with hand," v. 5. ed. 1579. " Because I 
may not worship things that be made with hands," 1562. (1584, 
Bishops' bible.)] 


impiorum : " She worshipped the king, not the tree verily ; 
for this is an heathenish error, and vanity of ungodly men." 
De obit. Theodosn\ 

Martin. But concerning the word "image," which you make to Martin, 
be the English of all the Latin, Hebrew, and Greek words, be they -'• 
never so many and so distinct, I beseech you, what reason had you to 
translate yXuTrra "images"? Wisd. xv. 13. Doth the Greek word so sig- 
nify ? doth not the sentence following tell you that it should hav,e been 
translated, "gi-aven idols"? for thus it saith, "They judged all the 
idols of the nations to be gods^." Lo, your images ! or rather, lo, the 
true names of the pagans' gods, which it pleaseth you to call " images", 

Fulke. I think you are not able to prove that we make Fulke, 
" image " the Enghsh to all the Hebrew words, though you ^7. 
boldly affirm it. But in the place by you mentioned, I sup- 
pose they translated the Greek word " graven or carved 
images,"" rather than idol, because the writer in that place, 
Wisd. XV. 13. speaketh of the first framing and fashioning of 
those images, which, though the purpose of the workman be 
never so wicked, yet cannot properly be called idols, before 
they be abused by them that worsliip them. 

Martin. But, to conclude this point : you might, and it would have Martin, 
well becomed you, in translating or expounding the foresaid words, to ^^' 
have followed St Jerome, the great famous translator and interpreter of 
the holy scriptures, who telleth you two senses of the foresaid words; the 
one literal, of the idols of the gentiles; the other mystical, of heresies and 
errors. " Sculptile," saith he, "and conflatile, I take to be perverse opinions, Comment. 
which are adored of the authors that made them. See Arius, that graved ™ ^^' "' 
to himself this idol, that Christ was only a creature, and adored that 
which he had graven. Behold Eunomius, how he molted and cast a 
false image, and bowed to that which he had molten'*." Suppose he had 

[2 Opera, Vol. ii. p. 1211.] 

r^ OvTos yap napa Trdvras oibep on dp,apTav(i., v\t}s yedSovs ev- 
6pav(TTa a-KevT] Koi yXvTTTa 8r]p,iovpy(av. Sapient. Solomonis, XV. 13. 
"Now he that of earth maketh frail vessels and images, knoweth 
himself to offend above all other," Bishops* bible 1584, Cranmer 
1562, Geneva 1560. "Ort navra to el'SwXa t5)V edvav iXoyla-avTO 
deovs. Ibid. XV. 15. " For they judge all the idols of the heathen to be 
gods," Bishops' bible.] 

[* "Sculptile" et "conflatile" reor dogmata esse perversa, quse ab his 
a quibus facta sunt adorantur. Vide Arium sculpsisse sibi idolum 





exemplified of the two condemned heretics, Jovinian and Vigilantius 
also ; had he not touched your idols, that is, the old condemned heresies, 
which you at this day adore ? 

Fulke. It becometh us best in translation to follow the 
original text, and, as near as we can, the true meaning of 
the Holy Ghost. As for the two senses Avhich Jerome telleth, 
[they] stand whole and untouched for our translation. There 
is a difference between a translation and a commentary. In 
commenting upon the text, they that see it convenient may 
apply the idols of the gentiles and the worship of them to 
the heresies of our times, of the papists, anabaptists, libertines, 
and such like, as the apostle doth by similitude to covetous- 
ness. As for old condemned heresies, which you charge us 
to worship as idols, you are able to prove none, whatsoever 
you babble of Vigilantius and Jovinian : neither of both do 
we foUow m any error, much less in any heresy. 


Zech. xiii. 
Loco citato'. 

Martin. These only (I mean heresies and heretics) are the idols 
and idolaters (by the ancient doctors' judgment) which have been among 
Christians since the idolatry of the gentiles ceased, according to the 
prophets. Therefore St Jerome saith again : " If thou see a man that 
will not yield to the truth, but when the falsehood of his opinions is 
once shewed, persevereth still in that he began ; thou mayest aptly say, 
sperat hi fiymento sua, and he maketh dumb or deaf idols^." And again, 
"All heretics have their gods; and whatsoever they have forged, they 
adore the same, as sculptile and confiatile; that is, 'as a graven and 
molten idoP.' " And again, " He saith well, 1 have found unto myself 
an idol ; for all the forgeries of heretics are as the idols of the gentiles ; 

creaturs, et adorasse quod sculpsit. Ceme Eunomium conflasse ima- 
ginem falsam, et conflationi suae curvare cervicem. Comment. Hie- 
ronymi in Abacuc. ii. 18. Opera, Vol. iii. p. 1615.]] 

[} Sive hific idola, de quibus apostolus loquitur (1 Tim. iv. 1, 2.). 
Sicut enim idola fiunt manu artificis; ita hiereticorum perversa doc- 
trina, quodcuuque siuiulaverit, vertit in idolum ; et facit Christo 
adorari antichristum. Comment. Hieronymi in Zacliar. xiii. Opera, 
Vol. III. p. 1787.] 

[^ Si quando videris aliquem nolle credere veritati, et ostensa su- 
orum dogmatuni falsitate in caepto studio perseverare, congrue poteris 
dicere, Sperat in figmento suo, et facit simulacra niuta vel surda. 
Comment. Hieronymi in. Abacuc. ii. Opera, Vol. iii. p. 1615.] 

[^ Singuli enim haereticorum habent deos sues: et quodcunque 
simulaverint, quasi sculptile colunt atque conflatile. Comment. Hie- 
ronymi in Osce. xi. Opera, Vol. iii. p. 1311.] 


neither do they much diffei' in impiety, though in name they seem to 
differ*." And again, " Whatsoever according to the letter is spoken In Amos. v. 
against the idolatry of the Jews, do thou refer all this unto them, which 
under the name of Christ worship idols, and forging to themselves per- 
verse opinions, carry the tabernacle of their king the devil, and the 
image of their idols. For they worship not an idol, but for variety of 
their doctrine they adore divers gods. And he put in very well, ' which 
you made to yourselves ;' for they received them not of God, but forged 
them of their o^vn mindV And of the idol of Samaria he saith, "We inAmos.viii. 
always understand Samaria (and the idol of Samaria) in the person of 
heretics, the same prophet saying, ' Woe be to them that despise Sion, Chap. vi. 
and trust in the mount of Samaria.' For heretics despise the churcli of 
God, and trust in the falsehood of their opinions, erecting themselves 
against the knowledge of God, and saying, when they have divided the 
people (by schism), ' We have no part in David, nor inlieritance in the 
son of Jesse*^ '." 

Fulke. Not these only, but the idols of the Simonists, Fulke, 
Valentinians, Gnostici, Carpocratits, Collyridians, and such ^^' 
like, made with hands, of Christ, and his mother, of Paul, 
and Simon, and Selene, and Pythagoras, &c. and such other, 
were idols of false Christians, since the idolatry of the gentiles 
gave place, by the judgment of Irenseus, Epiphanius, and 
other ancient doctors. And whatsoever you cite or can cite 
out of St Jerome agamst the idols of heresies, agreeth most 

[* Et pulchre, Inveni, ait, idolum mUii: omnia enim hareticorum 
figmenta idola sunt et simulacra gentilium: nee multum differunt in 
impietate, licet in nomine discrepare videantur. Comment. Hieronymi 
in Osee. xii. Opera, Vol. iii. p. 1321.] 

[^ Quidquid autem juxta litteram dicitur contra populum Juds- 
orum, hoc omne refer ad eos qui sub nomine Christi venerantur 
idola, et prava sibi dogmata confingentes portant tabernaculum regis 
sui diaboli, et imaginem statuarum et idolorum suorum. Non enim 
unura colunt idolum: sed pro varietate doctrinse diversos adorant 
deos et sidus dei sui. Comment. Hieronymi in Amos. v. Opera, 
Vol. in. p. 1422.] 

p Deficientibus autem virginibus, et adolescentes deficient, qui 
prius vicerant mundum : et idcirco deficient, quia jurant in idolo 
Samariae, quam in hiereticorum persona semper accipimus, dicente 
hoc eodem propheta: Vcb qui despidunt Sion, et confidant in monte 
SamaricE. Despiciunt enim hseretici ecclesiam Dei, et confidunt in 
falsitate dogmatum suorum, erigentes se contra scientiam Dei, et scisso 
populo ejus dicentes: Non est pars nobis in David, neque hcereditas in 
filio Jesse. Comment. Hieronymi in Amos. viii. Opera, Vol. iii. 
pp. 1444, 1445.J 




aptly to yourselves, the papists, who worship not only idols 
made with hands, but also the idols of your brains, which are 
abominable heresies. 




Martin. Thus the reader may see, that the holy scriptures which 
the adversaries falsely translate against the holy images of our Saviour 
Christ and his saints, to make us idolaters, do in deed concern their idols, 
and condemn them as idolaters ; which forge new opinions to themselves, 
such as the ancient fathers knew not, and adore them, and their own 
sense and interpretation of scriptures, so far and so vehemently, that 
they prefer it before the approved judgment of all the general councils 
and holy doctors, and for maintenance of the same corrupt the holy 
scriptures at their pleasure, and make them speak according to their 
fancies, as we have partly shewed, and now are to declare further. 

Fulhe. Thus the reader may see, that when you have 
cavilled, quarrelled, falsified, and slandered, as much as you 
can, to charge us with false translation of the scripture con- 
cerning images, you can find nothing worth the noting : but 
if some small oversight, through negligence, or perhaps the 
printer's fault, hath escaped, you make a great matter of it, 
although it be corrected by ourselves in other translations; 
and when all other matter faUeth, you retiu"n to your ac- 
customed vein of railing and reviling, which in no wise man's 
judgment deserveth answer, because it is so general. 



The Ecclesiastical use of Words turned into their Original 
and Profane signification. 

Martin. We spake a little before of the double signification of Martin,!. 
words ; the one according to the original property, the other according to 
the usual taking thereof in all vulgar speech and writing. These words 
(as by the way we shewed before, upon occasion of the adversaries' *^*'*P-,'i'\o 
grant) are to be translated in their vulgar and usual signification, not see also m. 
as they signify by their original property. As for example: major in 209; and the' 
the original signification is "greater." But when we say, "the mayor this book ° 
of London," now it is taken and soundeth in every man's ear for such "al'&e^much 
an officer; and no man will say, "the greater of London," according ""[^^"^''^'^ 
to the original property of it. Likewise episcopus, a Greek word, in the 
original sense is "every overseer," as TuUy useth it, and other pro- 
fane writers; but among Christians, in ecclesiastical speech, it is "a 
bishop ;" and no man wiU say, " My lord overseer of London," for 
" my lord bishop." Likewise we say, " seven deacons, St Stephen a 
deacon :" no man will say, " seven ministers, St Stephen a minister ;" 
although that be the original signification of the word " deacon." But 
by ecclesiastical use and appropriation being taken for a certain degree 
of the clergy, so it soundeth in every man's ear, and so it must be 
translated. As we say, " Nero made many martyrs ;" not, " Nero made 
many witnesses :" and yet " martyr" by the first original property of 
the word is nothing else but a "witness." We say, "baptism is a 
sacrament ;" not, " washing is a sacrament :" yet " baptism" and 
" washing," by the first original property of the word, is all one. 

FulJce. We have also answered before, that words must Fulke, l. 
not be always translated according to their original and 
general signification, but according to such signification, as 
by use they are appropried to be taken. We agree also, 
that words taken by custom of speech into an ecclesiastical 
meaning are not to be altered into a strange or profane sig- 
nification. For such vanities and novelties of words the 
apostle prohibiteth ; whereof the popish translation of the 
New Testament is fraught fuE. Notwithstanding our meaning 
is not, that if any Greek terms, or words of any other 
language, have of long time been usurped in our Enghsh 
language, the true understanding of which is unknown at 
this day to the common people, but that the same terms 


may be either in translation or exposition set out plainly, 
to inform the simplicity of the ignorant, by such words as 
of them are better understood. Also when those terms are 
abused by custom of speech, to signify some other thing 
than they were first appointed for, or else be taken ambigu- 
ously for divers things ; we ought not to be superstitious 
in these cases, but, to avoid misunderstanding, we may use 
words according to their original signification, as they were 
taken in such time as they were written by the instruments 
of the Holy Ghost. As for example, if 'a bishop' be mistaken 
by the people, either for such an idol as the papists used to 
make of their St Nicolas' bishops, or else for a great lord 
only, that rideth about in a white rochet ; they may be told, 
that the name of a bishop dcscribeth his office, that is, to 
be an overseer of the flock of Christ committed to his charge. 
Likewise if the word ' deacon' be taken for such an one, as 
at a popish mass standeth in a disguised tunicle, holding 
a patten, or some other idolatrous bauble used of them ; the 
people must be taught, that this name signifieth a minister, 
which was ordained not to serve the popish altar, but the 
poor men's tables, that is, to provide for the poor, and to 
see the church's alms bestowed upon them. Also if the 
name of ' martyrs' be not understood, but taken only for them 
that are tormented and rent in body, as the common speech 
is to say, of men and beasts, that they are martyred, when 
their bodies are wounded and mangled ; here it is needful 
to shew, that the saints that suffered for Christ had their 
name of then' witness or testimony, not of their pains and 
torments. The name of 'baptism** is so common to Christians, 
that it need not to be changed into washing : but yet it may 
and ought to be explicated unto the imlearned, what this 
word doth signify, which is no profane signification, but a 
true and general understanding of the word, which is used 
of the evangelist for other washino-s than the sacrament of 
baptism, and so you are enforced to translate it, Mark vii. 

Martin, 2. Martin. Now then to come to our purpose, such are the absurd 

translations of the English billies, and altogether like unto these : namely, 

when they translate " congregation" for " church," " elder" for " priest," 

" image" for " idol," " dissension" for " schism," " general" for " catho- 

♦Scechap. lie," "secret" for "sacrament," "overseer" for "bishop," "messenger" 

anU3,"4"iand for "angel*," "ambassador" for "apostle," " minister" for "deacon," and 


such like : to what other end be these deceitful translations, but to con- chap. xxi. 

ceal and obscure the name of the church and dignities thereof, mentioned 

in the holy scriptures ; to dissemble the word " schism" (as they do 

also "heresy" and "heretic*") for fear of disgi-acing their schisms and 

heresies; to say of "matrimony," neither "sacrament," which is the icor. xi. 

Latin, nor "mystery," which is the Greek, but to go as far as they 

can possibly from the common usual and ecclesiastical words, saying, 

" This is a great secret," in favour of their heresy, that matrimony is no Eph. v. 32. 

sacrament' ? 

Fulke. Absurd translations of the English bibles, you say, Fulke, 2. 
are "congregation" for "church," "elder" for "priest," "image" 
for "idol," and such lilce. The word "church" being ambigu- 
ously taken of the people for the place of assembly, and the 
assembly itself, it was as lawful for us to call congregation, as 
for you to call it assembly. Acts vii. This word "priest" 
commonly taken for a sacrificer and the same that sacerdos, 
and so by you translated, there was good occasion to use the 
word elder, for wliich you use senior, or ancient, in your 
translation, which is a name of authority, as overseer is of 
diligence, minister of service, pastor of feeding ; all which 
names set forth a true bishop, pastor, and elder, and if you 
will needs have it, of a true priest. Of " image" for idol is 
said enough in the next chapter before. "Schism" I know not 
howEnghshmen should understand, except it were Enghshed by 
dissension, division, rending, or some such like. Of "general" 
for catholic, we shall speak anon. " Secret" for sacrament 
we use, because we would retain the ecclesiastical use of this 
word sacrament, which is to signify the seals of God's pro- 

1^^ bixo(TTa(Tiai, alpio-eis. Gal. V. 20. " Dissensiones, sectae," Vulg. 
"Dissensions, sects," Wiclif, Rhemish. "Sedition, sects," Tyndale, 
Cranmer. " Sedition, heresies," Geneva, Authorised. 

A'tpeTiKuv avSpmnov. Tit. iii. 10. " Haereticum hominem," Vulg. 
"A man heretic," Wiclif. "A man that is given to heresy," Tyn- 
dale. "A man that is an author of sects," Cranmer 1539, 1562. " Him 
that is an heretic," Geneva. "A man that is an heretic," Bishops' 
bible 1584, Rheims, Authorised. 

del yap koI alpeaeis iv vplv dvai. 1 Cor. xi. 19. "Nam oportet 
et haereses esse," Vulg. " For it behoveth heresies to be," Wiclif. 
" For there must be sects among you," Tyndale, Cranmer 1539, 
1562. " For there must be even heresies among you," Geneva. 
" For there must be heresies also," Rheims. " For there must be 
also heresies," Bishops', Authorised.] 


mises, and not confound it with every holy or unholy secret 
thing. The Greek word "mystery,"" which you would enjoin 
us to use, was in the time of the first translation more un- 
known, than that we could well have used it, except we 
would have followed your vein in vanity and novelty of 
terms, prepuce^ neophyte, gratis, depositum, ^c, or else made 
general and common the proper use of this ecclesiastical term 
" sacrament" to every mystery, and called the sacrament of 
preaching, of publishing the gospel to the gentiles, of the 
seven stars, as you do, and yet in the sacrament of the whore 
of Babylon you leave it and call it mystery, Rev. xvii. 7, 
as you should be enforced to do, if you would translate the 
Old Testament out of Latin, Dan. ii., divers times, except 
you would call Nabuchadonozor's dream a sacrament, and 
Dan. iv., where the king saith, that to Daniel no secret is 
impossible, meaning unknown or not understood, you would 
say no sacrament, and Tob. xii., you would translate sacra- 
mentum regis absconder e honum est, "It is a good thing to 
hide the king's sacrament," where you should say secret, and 
where the English phrase would hardly bear you to say 
the king's mystery. Of the other terms, in the places by 
you quoted it shall bo suflSicient to speak. But I have ren- 
dered reasonable causes of these terms hitherto, so that no 
man, but mad with malice, would think we conceal the. name 
of church and dignities thereof in hatred of them, or do 
dissemble the names of schism and heresy in favour of those 
abominations, which are as well set forth to their detestation 
in the terms of dissension and sects. As for the name sacra- 
ment, we find [it] not in the Greek ; but mysterium we trans- 
late "a secret" or "a mystery," as the word signifieth, which 
nothing favoureth the pretended sacrament of matrimony. 

IVIahiin, 3. Martin. St Paul saith as plaiB as he can speak^ "I beseech you, 
1 Cor. i. 10. brethren, that you all say one thing, and that there be no schisms among 

r^ YiapaKoKSi he vfias, dbeXcpoi, 8ia tov ovofiaros tov Kvpiov rjfiaiv 
'lr](TOv Xpicrrov, iva to airo Xeyrjre Travres, Koi fii] rj fv vplv crp^iV- 
pLora. 1 Cor. i. 10. "Obsecro autem vos, fratres, per nomen Domini 
nostri Jesu Christi, ut idipsum dicatis omnes, et non sint in vobis 
schismata." Vulg. 

" I beseech you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
that ye all speak one thing, and that there be no dissension among 


you." They translate for "schisms" "dissensions;" which may be in 
profane and worldly things, as well as in matters of religion. But 
schisms are those that divide the unity of the church, whereof they 
know themselves guilty. St Paul saith as plainly as is possible, " A Tjt. iii. 
man that is an heretic, avoid after the first and second admomtion: dvdpwn-oi/. 
they translated in their bible of the year 1562, " A man that is an author 
of sects." And where the Greek is " heresy," reckoned among damnable alpearei^. 
sins, they say " sects ;" favouring that name for their own sakes, and 
dissembling it, as though the holy scriptures spake not against " heresy" 
or "heretics," "schism" or "schismatics." 

Fulke. St Paul indeed speaketh plainly in Greek ; but Fulke, 3. 
if you speak English and say scliisms, forty thousand of the 
people in England will swear they understand you not. But 
scliisms (you say) are those " that divide the unity of the 
church : dissensions may be in profane and worldly things.'"" 
Verily, all schisms divide not the church, for they were not 
all the church, of whom it is said in St John ix., " There 
was a schism among them :" for I think the best of the 
Pharisees were scarce good members of the church. Again, 
where St Paul doth say, "lest there should be a schism in the 
body," 1 Cor. xii., he speaketh of the natm'al body, where- 
imto he compareth the church. St Paul also saith, as plainly 
as he can speak in Greek, 1 Cor. xi. 18., " I hear that 
there be schisms among you :" yet your vulgar Latin trans- 
lator is bold to say scissuras, cuttings or rendings, where 
you are bold to go from your Latin text and call them 
schisms. And for exphcating the Greek name of heresy 
by sects, why should we be more blamed, than the vulgar 
Latin translator, who commonly translateth it sectas, and namely 
Gal. v., 2 Pet. ii.. Acts xxiv. divers times, xxvi. and xxviii., 
in all which places you yom'selves translate "sects" ? Is it 
because he or you favour heresies and heretics ? Will you 
never leave this foohsh wrangling, which always turneth 
you to the greater discredit ? 

Martin. As also they suppress the very name "catholic," when it Martin, 4. 
is expressly in the Greek, for malice toward catholics and catholic reli- 
gion, because they know, themselves never shall be called or known by 
that name. And therefore their two English bibles, accustomed to be An. 156-2. 
read in their church, (therefore by like most authentic,) leave it clean 

you," Tyndale, Cranmer 1539, 1562, Geneva, Bishops' 1584. "And 
that there be no divisions among you," Authorised Version.] 




Lind. in Du- 

Euseb. lib. ii. out in the title of all those epistles, which have been known by the 
cap. 22. in name of Catholic(P Epistolcn ever since the apostles' time : and their later 
"^1579. English bible (dealing somewhat more honestly) hath turned the word 
" catholic" into " general," saying, " The General Epistle of James, of 
Peter," &c. As if a man should say in his creed, " I believe the general 
church," because he would not say, " the catholic church ;" as the Lu- 
theran catechisms say for that purpose, " I believe the christian church." 
So that by this rule, when St Augustine telleth that the manner was in 
cities where there was liberty of religion, to ask, Qua itur ad catholicam ^ 
we must translate it, " Which is the way to the general ?" And when 
St Jerome saith, " If we agree in faith with the bishop of Rome," ergo 
catholici sumus ; we must translate it, " Then we are generals." Is 
not this good stuff? Are they not ashamed thus to invert and pervert 
all words against common sense, and use, and reason? Catholic and 
general or universal (we know) is by the original property of the word 
all one : but according to the use of both, as it is ridiculous to say, 
" A catholic council," for " A general council ;" so is it ridiculous and 
impious to say " general " for " catholic," in derogation thereof, and for 
to hide it mider a bushel. 

FuLKE, 4. FulJce. I do not know where the name of " eathohc" is 

once expressed in the text of the bible, that it might be 
suppressed by us, which are not hke to bear mahce to the 
cathohc church or rehgion, seeing we teach even our young 
children to believe "the holy catholic church." But not find- 
ing the word catholic in the text, you run to the title of the 
seven epistles, called as commonly canonical as cathohc or 
general. But Eusebius belike testifieth that they have been 
so called ever since the apostles' time, hb. ii. cap. 22.' I 
marvel you are not ashamed to avouch such an mitruth. 
Eusebius, speaking of his own time, saith they are so called ; 
but that they have been so called ever since the apostles' 
time, he saith not. And so far off he is from saying so, 
that he pronounceth the epistle of St James in the same 
place to be a bastard, and speaketh doubtfully of the epistle 
of St Jude^ But whereas in one translation we use the 

{} See the passage quoted before, p. 16.] 

[^ Jacobus, qui appellatur frater Domini, cognomento Justus, ut 
nonnulli existimant, Josephi ex alia uxore, ut autem mihi videtur, 
Mariae sororis matris Domini, cujus Johannes in libro suo meminit, 
filius, post passionem Domini statim ab apostolis Jerosolymoruni 
episcopus ordinatus, unam tantum scripsit epistolam, qus de septem 
catholicis est; quae et ipsa ab alio quodam sub nomine ejus edita 
asseritur. Hieronymi Catal. Scrip. Eccles. ii. Opera, Vol. iv. p. 101. 


word " general" for catholic, you make a great maygame of 
it, shewing your wit and your honesty both at once. For 
these five of James, two of Peter, one of Jude, and the first 
of John, which are properly and rightly so entitled, have 
that title, because they are not sent to any particular church 
or persons, but to all in general, as the Greek scholiast 
truly noteth, Qi^cumenius before the epistle of St James 
saith expressly, Catholicce, id est, universales dicuntur Tice^ 
^c^. " These epistles are called catholic, that is to say, univer- 
sal or general, because not distinctly to one nation or city (as 
St Paul to the Romans, or Corinthians) this company of our 
Lord's disciples doth dedicate these epistles, but generally 
to the faitliful, or to the Jews that were dispersed, as also 
Peter, or else to all Christians hving under the same faith." 
For otherwise, if they should be called catholic in respect of 
the soundness of the doctrine contained in them, what reason 
were there more to call them so, than to call all the epistles 
of St Paul ? Wherefore in this title, which yet is no part of 
the holy scripture, it is rightly translated " general." The 
other translators, seeing seven to be called general, where 
only five are so in deed, and seeing them also called canon- 
ical, which should seem to be a controlling of St Paul's epistles, 
left out that title altogether, as being no part of the text and 
word of God, but an addition of the stationers or writers. 

Martin. Is it because they would follow the Greek, that they turn Martin, 5. 
KaQokiKX] "general"? Even as just as when they turn f'iSoAop "image," CathoiiciB. 
7rapado(Tiv "instruction," SiKalcofxa "ordinance," (rxl-a-fJia "dissension," 
mpea-iv " sect," fivcTTqpiov " secret," and such like ; where they go as 
far from the Greek as they can, and will be glad to pretend for answer 

Jacobus, Peti-us, Johannes, Judas, Apostoli, septem epistolas edi- 
derunt tam mysticas quam succinctas, et breves pariter et longas: 
breves in verbis, longas in sententiis, ut rarus sit qui non in earum 
lectione caecutiat. Hieron. Epist. II. ad Paulinum. Opera, Vol. iv. 
p. 574. See answer to preface, p. 88.] 

L KadoXiKoi XiyovTUt avrai, olouel eyKvKXioi. ov yap d(pmpi(Tpevois 
edvei evl *) noXei, (cos 6 deios navXos Tols 'Papaiois rj Kopwdiois) 
Trpoa-cfxovel ravras ras eVtcrroXas 6 Tav toiovtcov tov Kvpiov p.adT]Tcov 
Giaaos, aXXa KadoXov toIs Tnaro'is, i]toi 'lovSat'otj rois eV ttj diaaTropa, 
as Kal 6 Uerpos, rj Kal ttckti rois vno rrjv avTrjv Tviariv XpicTTiavois 
reXoia-iv. (Ecumenii Argument. Cathol. Jacobi Epist. Opera, Vol. 11. 
p. 439. Edit. Lutet. Paris. 1631.] 


of their word " sect," that they follow our Latin translation. Alas ! poor 
shift for them that otherwise pretend nothing but the Greek, to be 
tried by that Latin which themselves condemn. But we honour the 
said text, and translate it " sects" also, as we there find it, and as we 
do in other places follow the Latin text ; and take not our advantage of 
the Greek text, because we know the Latin translation is good also and 
sincere, and approved in the church by long antiquity, and it is in sense 
all one to us %vith the Greek : but not so to them, who in these days of 
controversy about the Greek and Latin text, by not following the Greek, 
which they profess sincerely to foUow, bewray themselves that they do 
it for a malicious purpose. 

FuLKEjS. FulJce. It is because we would have the Greek under- 
stood, as it is taken in those places, when we turn " catholic"" 
general, idolum, image, irapaSoaiv, instruction, SiKaicufxa, or- 
dinance, cr^/cr/ua, dissension, -aipecnv, sect, fivo-Ttjpiov, secret, 
and such hke. And where you say, we would be glad for 
our word "sect" to pretend to follow your Latin translation, it 
is a fable. For in translating " sect," we follow the Greek 
as truly, as your Latin translation doth ; which if it be true 
and sincere, as you confess, what devilish madness possess- 
eth your malicious mind to burden us with such purposes, 
as no reasonable man would once imagine or think of, that 
we should use that term in favour of heresy and heretics, 
whom we thinlc worthy to suffer death, if they will not 
repent, and cease to blaspheme or seduce the simple? 



Heretical Translation against the Church. 

Martin. As they suppress the name "catholic," even so did they Martin, 1. 
intheii- first English bible the name of "church" itself; because at their 
first revolt and apostasy from that that was universally known to be 
the only tnie catholic church, it was a great objection against their 
schismatical proceedings, and it stuck much in the people's consciences, 
that they forsook the church, and that the church condemned them. 
"V^'Tiereupon very wilily they suppressed the name "church" in their 
English translation, so that in all that bible so long read in their con- Bib. 1562. 
gregations we cannot once find the name thereof. Judge by these places, 
which seem of most importance for the dignity, preeminence, and autho- 
rity of the church. 

FulJce. How can we suppress the name "catholic," which Fulke, 1. 
the holy scripture never useth ? As for the name of church, 
I have already shewed divers times, that for to avoid the 
ambiguous taking of that term, it was at the first less used, 
but never refused for doubt of any objection of the catholic 
church against us : the profession of which, being contained 
in our English creed, how could we relinquish, or not ac- 
knowledge to be contained in the scriptiu'e, in which we 
taught that all articles of faith necessary to salvation are 
comprehended? But we are content to be judged "by those 
places which seem of most importance for the dignity, pre- 
eminence, and authority of the church." 

Martin. Our Saviour saith, "Upon this rock I will build my church, Martin, 2. 
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it \" They make him to Matt. xvi. 
say, "Upon this rock 1 will build my congregation." Again, " If he Matt.xviii. 
hear not them, tell the church ; and if he hear not the church, let him 
be to thee as an heathen and as a publican ;" they say, " congregation^." 

Qi oiKo^ofi-^fTQi jiov Ti)v €KKXr](riav. Matt. xvi. 18. " I will build 
my congregation," Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, Bishops' bible. " I 
will build my church," Wiclif, Rhemish, Authorised.] 

Q2 fine rj] eKKkrja-la.. Matt, xviii. 17. " Tell it unto the congrega- 
tion," Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva. "Tell it to the church," ^Viclif, 
Bishops' bible, Rhemish, Authorised version.] 

r 1 ^5 



Again, who would tliink they would have altered the word " church" 
in the Epistle to the Ephesians? Their English translation for many 

Eph. V. years read thus : " Ye husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the 
congregation, and cleansed it to make it unto himself a glorious congre- 

1 Tim.iu. gation without spot or wrinkle." And, " This is a great secret, hut I 
speak of Christ and of the congregation." And to Timothy, " The house 
of God, which is the congregation of the living God, the pillar and ground 
of truth." Here is no word of " church," which in Latin and Greek is, 
Ecclesia Dei vivi, columna et Jirmamentum veritatis. Likewise to the 

Eph. 1. Ephesians again, " He hath made him head of the congregation, which 

Heb. xi 93. is his body." And to the Hebrews they are all bold to translate : " The 
congregation of the first-born," where the apostle nameth "heavenly 
Jerusalem, the city of the living God," &c.^ 

FuLKE, 2. Fulke. In the first English bible printed, where it was 
thus translated. Matt. xvi. " Upon this rock I will build 
my congregation-," the note in the margin is thus : " Upon 
this rock, that is, as saith St Augustine, upon the con- 
fession which thou hast made, knowledging me to be Christ, 
the Son of the living God, I will build my congregation 
or church^!" Was not this translator, think you, sore afraid 
of the name of " the church" ? What other thing should he 
understand by the word "congregation" in all places by you 
noted, or in any like, but the church, as he doth here ex- 
pound himself? And this translation, almost word for word, 
doth the bible you call 1562 follow. 

[} The versions of Tyndale and Cranmer render fKKXrja-ia at Eph, v. 
23, 24, 25, "congregation:" those of Wiclif, Geneva, Bishops' bible, and 
Authorised, render it "church." And also the same translation of 
fKicXria-ia is given by these several versions respectively at 1 Tim. 
iii. 15. 

Tyndale and Cranmer also translate the word "congregation" at 
Ephes. i. 22. : all the other versions render it " church." At Hebrews 
xii. 23, Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, and the Bishops' bible, have it 
"congregation:" WicUf, Rhemish, and Authorised version, "church."] 

[^ Tu es Petrus, et supe)' hanc petram (Edificaho ecclesiam meam; 
ut super hunc intelligeretur quem confessus est Petrus, dicens, Tu es 
Christus films Dei vivi; ac sic Petinis ab hac petra appellatus perso- 
nam ecclesiae figuraret, quae super hanc petram sedificatur, et accepit 
claves regni coelorum. Non enim dictum est illi, Tu es petra, sed, tu 
es Petrus. Petra autem erat Christus; quem confessus Simon, sicut 
eum tota ecclesia confitetur, dictus est Petrus. Augusttni Retractio- 
num, Lib. i. c. 2L Opera, Vol. i. pp. 67, 68. edit. Bened. Paris. 1836.] 

P Matthew's Bible 1537.] 


Martin. So that, by this translation, there is no more church mili- Martin, 3. 
tant and triumphant, but congregation, and he is not head of the 
church, but of the congregation ; and this congregation, at the time of 
the making of this translation, was in a few new brethren of England, 
for whose sake the name " church" was left out of the English bible, 
to commend the name of " congregation" above the name of " church." 
Whereas St Augustine telleth them, that the Jews' synagogue was a inPs. ixxxi. 
congregation, the church a convocation ; and that a congregation is of avfaywyij. 
beasts also ; a convocation, of reasonable creatures only ; and that the eKK\i}(ria^. 
Jews' congregation is sometime called "the church," but the apostles 
never called the church " congregation." Do you see then what a 
goodly change they have made, for "church" to say "congregation," 
so making themselves a very synagogue, and that by the property of the 
Greek word; which yet (as St Augustine telleth them most truly) sig- 
nifieth rather a " convocation" ? 

FulJce. A strange matter, that the church mihtant and Fulke, 8. 
triumphant should be excluded by using the word congre- 
gation, when by it nothing is signified but the congregation 
or church militant and triumphant ; and that Christ should 
no more be head of the chm'ch when he is head of the 
congregation, where the difference is only in sound of words, 
not in sense or meaning. Your vain and ridiculous surmise, 
why the name of church should be left out of the bible, I 
have before confuted, shewing that in every bible it is either 
in the text, or in the notes. But St Augustine telleth us (say 
you) that the Jews' synagogue was a congregation, the 
church a convocation ; and that a congregation is of beasts 
also, a convocation of reasonable creatures only. But St 
Luke in the person of St Stephen telleth us, (and Augustine 
telleth us as much,) that the synagogue of the Jews is called 
also ecclesia, which signifieth the church and congregation. 

[* The LXX. read in the first verse of the eighty-second Psalm, 
6 Geo? earri iv (rvvaywyfj 6ewv, which is translated by the Vulgate, 
" Deus stetit in synagoga deorum." Upon these words Augustine 
speaks as follows: "In synagoga populum Israel acciijimus; quia et 
ipsorum proprie synagoga dici solet, quamvis et ecclesia dicta sit. 
Nostram vero apostoli nunquam synagogam dixerunt, sed semper 
ecclesiam; sive discernendi causa, sive quod inter congregationem 
unde synagoga, et convocationem unde ecclesia nomen accepit, distet 
aliquid; quod scilicet congregari et pecora solent, atque ipsa proprie, 
quorum et greges proprie dicimus ; convocari autem magis est uten- 
tium ratione, sicut sunt homines. Augustini Enarratio in Psalmum 
Ixxxi. 1.] 



That congregatio, the Latin word, may be of beasts also, it 
skilleth not ; for the church of Christ is called also a flock, 
and sheep of his pasture. But he that should say in English 
"a congregation of beasts," might be taken for as wise a man, 
as he that said "an auchence of sheep." And whereas St Au- 
gustine telleth you, that the Jews' .congregation is sometime 
called the church ; what is the cause that you do translate 
it "the assembly," Acts vii., even as you do "the congregation 
oi the idolatrous Ephesians," Acts xix.? But further (you say) 
Augustine telleth us, that the apostles never called the church 
" congregation." It is a world to see what foolish fetches 
you have to deceive the ignorant. Augustine sayeth, the 
apostles never called our assembly synagoga, but always 
ecclesia : and yet he is a little deceived ; for St Paul calleth 
our gathering together unto Christ ewKTwaywyri, but congre- 
gatio, " a congregation," he saith not. And although he make 
a nice distinction between the words " congregation" and 
"convocation," yet aU men which know the use of these words, 
will confess no necessity of a Jewish synagogue to be im- 
phed in the word "congregation" more than in the word 
cKKXijaia, which of the Holy Ghost is used for an assembly or 
gathering together, either of Jews, Christians, or Gentiles. 
And therefore, it seemeth, the translator used the word "con- 
gregation," which is indifferent for all, even as the word 
ecclesia is used both in the Greek and vulvar Latin. 

Mariin, 4. Martin. If they appeal here to their later translations, we must 
obtain of them to condemn the former, and to confess this was a gross 
fault committed therein ; and that the catholic church of our country 
did not ill to forbid and burn such books which were so translated by 
Tyndal and the like, as being not indeed God's book, word, or scripture, 
but the devil's word. Yea, they must confess that the leaving out of 
this word "church" altogether was of an heretical spirit against the 
catholic Roman church, because then they had no Calvinistical church 
in any like form of religion and government to theirs now. Neither 
will it serve them to say after their manner, " And if a man should trans- 
Confut. of late ecclesiam 'congregation,' tlais is no more absurdity, than instead 
foi. 35. ' of a Greek word to use a Latin of the same signification." This, we 
trow, will not suffice them in the judgment of the simplest indifferent 

FuLKE, 4. Fulke. We need not to appeal to the later transla- 
tions for any corruption or falsification of the former, no, 


nor for any mistranslation. For seeing the Spirit of God (as 
I have said) useth the word ecclesia generally for a com- 
pany of Christians, Jews, and Gentiles, the translator hath 
not gone from the truth and use of the scriptures, to 
use the word " congregation," which signifieth indifferently 
all three. Wlierefore there needeth no condemnation, nor 
confession of any gross fault herein committed ; except you 
will count it a gross fault in St Luke, to use the word 
CKKkriaia without any scrupulosity for all three, as the trans- 
lator doth the Avord " congregation," and you in two signifi- 
cations the word " assembly." Neither can your heathenish 
and barbarous burning of the holy scriptures so translated, 
nor your blasphemy in calling it the devil's word, be excused 
for any fault in translation which you have discovered as 
yet, or ever shall be able to descry. That stinking cavil 
of leaving out of the bible this word " church" altogether, 
being both foohsh and false, I have answered more than 
once already. It is not left out altogether, that in con- 
tents of books and chapters, and in notes of explication of 
this word " congregation V is set down. Neither could there 
be any purpose against the catholic church of Christ in 
them that translated and taught the creed in English, pro- 
fessing to believe " the holy catholic church." As for our 
hatred of the mahgnant antichristian church of Rome, we 
never dissembled the matter, so that we were afraid openly 
to profess it : what need had we then after such a fantas- 
tical manner (as is fondly imagined) to insinuate it? 

Martin. But, my masters, if you would confess the former faults Martin, 5. 
and corruptions never so plainly, is that enough to justify your cornipt 
dealing in the holy scriptures ? Is it not an horrible fault so wilfully 
to falsify and corrupt the word of God, written by the inspiration of the 
Holy Ghost ? May you abuse the people for certain years with false 
translations, and afterward say, " Lo, we have amended it in our later 
translations" ? Then might the heretic Beza be excused for translating see his New 
instead of " Christ's soul in hell," his " carcase in the grave :" and „f the year 
because some friend told him of that corruption, and he corrected it in by^o'bert'^ 
the later editions, he should nevertheless in your judgment be counted a I'^t^u! '^f°'' 
right honest man. No, be ye sure, the discreet reader cannot be so 
abused ; but he will easily see that there is a great difference in mending 
some oversights which may escape the best men, and in your gross false 

f Congregation. See No. 2.] 


translations, who at the first falsify of a prepensed malice, and afterwards 
alter it for very shame. Howbeit, to say the truth, in the chiefest and 
principal place, that concerneth the church's perpetuity and stability, 
you have not yet altered the former ti'anslation, but it remaineth as before, 
Mitt.xvi. 18. and is at this day read in your churches thus, "Upon this rock I will 
build my congregation." Can it be without some heretical subtilty, 
that in this place specially, and (I think) only, you change not the word 
" congregation" into " church" ? Give us a reason, and discharge your 

FuLKE, 5. Fulke. You are very hardly, and In very deed mali- 
ciously, bent against us, that you will accept no confession 
of faults escaped, never so plainly made. As for corrupt 
deahng in the holy scriptures, and falsifying of the word 
of God, you are not able, no, not if you would burst your- 
self for malice, to convict us. And therefore look for no 
confession of any such wickedness, whereof our conscience 
is clear before God, and doth not accuse us. As for Beza's 
correction of his former translation, Acts ii. 27, if your dogged 
stomach will not accept, he shall notwithstanding with all 
godly learned men be accounted, as he deserveth, for one 
who hath more profited the church of God with his sin- 
cere translation and learned annotations, than all the popish 
seminaries and seminarists shall be able to hinder it, jangle 
of gross and false translations as long as you will. But 
"the chiefest and principal place, that concerneth the church's 
perpetuity," is not yet reformed to your mind. For in the 
bible 1577, we read still, Matt, xvi., " Upon this rock I 
will build my congregation." If Christ have a perpetual 
congregation, " builded upon the foundation of the prophets 
and apostles, himself being the corner-stone," his church is 
in no danger ever to decay. Yet you ask, whether it can 
be without some heretical subtilty, that in this place spe- 
cially, and (as you think) only, the word "congregation" is not 
changed into "church." It is an homely, but a true proverb : 
The good wife would never have sought her daughter in 
the oven, had she not been there first herself. You are 
so full of heretical subtilties and traitorous devices, that 
you dream of them in other men's doings, whatsoever cometh 
into your hands ; yea, where you yourself can have no pro- 
bable imagination what to suspect. And therefore we must 
give you a reason in discharge of our credit. For my part, 


I know not with what special reason the translator was 
moved ; but I can give you my probable conjecture, that 
he thought it all one, (as indeed it is,) to say " my congre- 
gation," or "my church." For what is Christ's congregation, 
but his church ? or what is Christ's chm'ch, but liis congre- 
gation ? And yet, to put you out of all fear, the Geneva trans- 
lation hath the word " church," that you make so great ac- 
coimt of, as though it were not an indifferent word to the true 
church of true Christians and the false church of mahgnant 
heretics ; being usurped first to signify the congregation of 
Christians, by a metonymy of the place containing for the 
people contained. For the etymology thereof is from the 
Greek word KvpiaKti, which was used of Christians for the 
place of their holy meetings, signifying "the Lord's house;" 
therefore in the northern, which is the more ancient Enghsh 
speech, is called by contraction kyrke, more near to the sound 
of the Greek word. 

Martin. What shall I say of Beza, whom the English bibles also Martin, 6. 
follow, translating actively that Greek word, (which iu common use, 
and by St Chrysostom, and the Greek doctors' exposition, is a plain 
passive,) to signify, as in his annotations is clear, that Christ may be 
without his church, that is, a head without a body. The words be these 
in the heretical translation : " He gave him to be the head over aU Eph. i. 21. 23. 

povftiivov '. 

\} The following extract from Beza's New Testament will serve 
to explain the matter in dispute in this and the two succeeding num- 
bers : "Hrij icTTi TO aafia avrov, to TvXrjpmfia tov irdvTa iv Tracri 
TrKrjpoviJLevov. Ephes. i. 23. Rendered by Beza, "Qute est corpus ip- 
sius, et complementum ejus qui omnia implet in omnibus:" upon 
which he has this note: 

Complementum, Trkijpcofia, sive supplementum. Is enim est Christi 
in ecclesiam amor, ut quum omnia in omnibus ad plenum praestet, 
tamen sese veluti mancum et membris mutilum caput existimet, nisi 
ecclesiam habeat sibi instar corporis adjunctam. Hinc factum ut 
Christus interdum collective pro tota ecclesia capiti suo adjuncta ac- 
cipiatur, ut 1 Cor. xii. 12, 13, et Gal. iii. 16. Hinc etiam illud "in 
Christo," toties repetitum; quod multo expressius aliquid significat 
quam cum Christo, vel per Christum. Hinc factum ut diceret apo- 
stolus se in Christo, et Christum in se vivere, Gal. ii. 20. Hinc ilia 
Christi vox, Sauk, Saule, quid me persequeris? Quo etiam pertinet 
quod scriptum est, Col. i. 24. Hinc denique nostra spes omnis et 
consolatio proficiscitur. Qui implet, tov Trkrjpovpevov. Chrysostomus 
passive accipit, ut sit sensus, Christum prorsus impleri in omnibusj 


things to the church, which (church) is his hody, the fulness of him that 
fiUeth all in all." " St Chrysostom," saith Beza, (he might have said, all 
the Greek and Latin ancient fathers,) "taketh it passively in this sense, 
that Christ is ' filled ' all in all, because all faithful men as members, 
and the v^^hole church as the body, concur to the fulness and accomplish- 
ment of Christ the head. But this," saith he, "seemeth unto me a 
forced interpretation." Why so, Beza ? 

FuLKE, 6. Fulke. That Beza translateth the participle, rov ttXt]- 
povfxevov, actively, it is plain, both in the text of his transla- 
tion, and in his annotations : but that he doth it to signify, 
that Christ may be Avithout his church, that is, a head with- 
out a body, it is a shameless slander. His words, upon 
which you weave this cobweb, are these : Omnino autem 
hoc addidit apostolus, ut sciamus Christum per se non indi- 
gere hoc supplemento, ut qui efficiat omnia in omnibus revera ; 
nedum ut suppleatur a quoquam, nisi quatenus pro immensa 
sua honitate ecclesiam dignatur sihi quasi corporis instar 
adjungere. " This the apostle hath added altogether for this 
end, that we may know that Christ of himself hath no need 
of this supply, as he Avliich worketh in truth ' all tilings 
in all ;' so far it is, that he should be supphed by any body, 
but that of his infinite goodness he vouchsafeth to adjoin 
his church unto liimself as his body." Wlio but the devil 
would find fault with this godly and cathohc saying ? wherein 
it is affirmed, that Christ, which according to the perfec- 
tion of his divine nature needeth no supply, yet of his in- 
finite mercy vouchsafeth to become head of his church, as 
of liis body ; so that he will not be counted perfect with- 
out it. Is this to say, Christ may be a head without a 
body ? or is it for his benefit, or the benefit of his church, 
that he is the head thereof? But the more to lay open 
this mahcious slander and impudent falsifying of Beza's 
words and meaning, I will set down his saying, going im- 

id est, singulos fideles conferre ad Christi complementum, uti corpus 
ipsum ex singulis membris est compactum. Mihi videtur coacta ista 
interpretatio, [qui potius active istud accipio, edit. 1582, p. 231.] quum 
TO 7r\r]povar6ai pro nXripovv Xenophon usurparit. Lib. vi. Hellen. et 
a-vfiirXripova-dai pro crvjjiTrXrjpovv Plato in Timseo. Omnino autem hoc 
addidit apostolus, ut sciamus Christum per se non indigere hoc sup- 
plemento, ut qui efficiat omnia in omnibus revera; nedum ut sup- 
pleatur a quoquam, nisi quatenus pro immensa sua bonitate ecclesiam 
dignatur sibi quasi corporis instar adjungere. Edit. 1556, p. 249.] 


mediately before, upon the word vrX^pcajULa, Avhich he calleth 
complementum sive supplementum, " a fulfilling or supplying :" 
Is enim est Christi in ecclesiam amor, &c. " For such is the 
love of Christ toward his church, that whereas he performeth 
all things to all men unto the full ; yet he esteemeth him- 
self as an unperfect head, and maimed of the members, unless 
he have his church adjoined to him, as his body. Hereof it 
Cometh, that Christ is taken sometime collectively for the whole 
church, adjoined to her head, as 1 Cor. xii, 12, 13, and Gal. iii. 
16. Hereof cometh also that phrase ' in Christ,' so often re- 
peated, which signifieth something more expressly than with 
Christ, or by Christ. Hereof that voice of Christ, ' Saul, 
Saul, why dost thou persecute me ?' Wliither also pertaineth 
that which is written, Col. i. 24. Finally, hereof proceedeth 
all our hope and consolation." How think you ? is not this 
man willing to separate the church from Christ, the head 
from the body ? monstrous malices of godless papists ! 
His exposition of the place being such, as you see, let us 
now examine what can be said against his translation : for a 
man must not translate falsely to make a true sense. It 
is alleged against him, that Chrysostom and all the Greek 
and Latin fathers take the participle passively. Beza con- 
fesseth it of Chrysostom, whom the later Greek writers 
commonly do follow. But the participle, being derived of 
the mean verb, may have either passive or active signifi- 
cation. But why doth Beza say, that the exposition of 
Chrysostom is " forced," which taketh it passively? He saith 
not in respect of Chrys ostein's sense, which he liimself fol- 
loweth, and it is contained in the word TrXtjpwfxa, but in 
respect of the grammar, that Travra should be put abso- 
lutely without any word to govern it, seeing the participle 
of the mean verb may be taken actively, and govern irdvra, 
being the accusative case. 

Martin. Mark his doctors whom he opposeth to the fathers, both Martin, 7. 
Greek and Latin. " Because Xenophon" saith he, " in such a place, and 
Plato in such a place, use the said Greek word actively." I omit this 
miserable match, and unworthy names of Xenophon and Plato, in trial 
of St Paul's words, against all the glorious doctors ; this is liis common 
custom. I ask him rather of these his own doctors, how they use the 
Greek word in other places of their works ? how use they it most com- 
monly ? yea, how do all other Greek writers, either profane or sacred. 


use it ? What say the Greek readers of all universities ? Surely, not 
only they, but their scholars for the most part, cannot be ignorant, that 
Tr\}ipov- the use of this word and the like is passive, though sometime it may 
'"" * also signify actively : but that is so rare in comparison of the other, that 

no man lightly will use it ; and I am well assured it would be counted 
a fault, and some lack of skill, if one now in his writings that would 
express this in Greek, " God filletli all things with his blessing," should 
say, tArjpovTai. Tvavra : and, " The wine filleth the cup," o oivos irkrjpov- 
TM TO noTTjpiov. Ask them that have skill, and control me. Contrariwise, 
if one would say passively, " All things are filled with God's blessing," 
" The cup is filled with wine," " Such a prophecy is fulfilled ;" what 
mean Grecian would not say, as St Chrysostom here exi)Oundeth this 
word, TvXrjpovTai, using it passively ? 

FuLKE, 7. FulJce. Mark how malice carrieth this man ahuost into 
madness. For who but a madman would think, that Beza 
opposeth profane writers to ecclesiastical doctors for un- 
derstanding of the scripture? The mean verb TrXtipovfiai, 
which the meanest grammarian in the Avorld knoweth to be 
taken both actively and passively by the grammar rule Be 
mrho medio, Beza proveth out of Xenophon and Plato that 
it is and may be used actively. Wliy not therefore in this 
place of St Paul, where both the sense requireth it, that one 
tiling be not repeated twice without necessary cause, and the 
construction of the word iravTa calleth for it, which other- 
wise is left at random without any government? Seeing 
therefore we have the common rule of grammar, and the 
example of eloquent writers for use, I marvel what M. Martin 
meaneth to waste so many words about so clear a matter. 
No man that knoweth any thing doubteth, but that ifKrjpoviiaL 
may be, and is often, taken passively : but seeing it is also 
found to be a verb mean, who need to be afraid to use it 
actively (having Xenophon and Plato for his warrant), yea, 
even in those examples you put, of God's blessing Hlhug all 
things, or the wine filhng the cup, if any man would speak 
so. But if, because the word is more usually taken passively, 
men would refrain so to speak ; yet why should we think that 
St Paul did not use it actively ? when the active signification 
is more agreeable, both with liis words and with his meaning. 
But lest you should think Beza is alone, which taketh it 
actively, what say you to Phihppus Montanus, one of your 
own profession ? which in his animadversions upon Theophy- 
lact's translation, by him corrected, saith upon this place: 


TrXrjpoufxevou qui adimplet, vel adimplefur, mrbum enim est 
medium, passive autem mdetur accipere Theophylactus: "Wliich 
fiUeth, or which is filled ; for it is a verb of indiiferent 
signification, active or passive, but Theophylact seemeth to 
take it passively." What say you to Isidorus Clarius, who 
although in liis text he readeth passively, yet in his note 
confesseth it may be taken either passively or actively ? 
For this is his note : Plenitudo ejus'\ per omnia enim memhra 
adimpletur corpus Christi, quia omnia in omnibus implet, dum 
ipse agit in omnibus, ml per omnes hojnines hwc implet membra. 
Site plenitudinem et complementum omne suum liabet ipsa 
ecclesia ab illo, quia omnia in omnibus adimplet^: "That is the 
fulness of him] for by all the members the body of Christ 
is filled, because he fiUeth all in all, while he worketh in 
all, or throughout all men fiUeth these members. Or else, 
the church herself hath all her fulness and accomplishment 
of him, which filleth all in all." These men, both papists, 
were as good Grecians (I warrant you) as M. Gregory Martin 
is, or ever will be ; by whom if he will not be controlled, 
it were folly to press him with the judgment of our " Greek 
readers," which he requireth. 

Martin. "Yet," saith Beza, "this is a forced interpretation, because MAimx, 8. 
Xenophon foreooth and Plato," once perhaps in all their whole works, 
" use it otherwise." Oh, heretical blindness, or rather stubbornness, that 
calleth that forced, which is most common and usual ; and seeth not that 
his ovna. translation is forced, because it is against the common use of 
the word ! But no marvel : for he that in other places thinketh it no 
forced interpretation to translate he^aa-Qai " to be contained," which Becipere. 
neither Xenophon nor Plato nor any Greek author will allow him to 
do, and ^vx')^ "carcase," and Trpoyvcocnv "providence," and fieravoiw Amrrnim. 
" them that amend their lives," may much more in this place dissemble tiam! 
his forced inteiin-etation of ireivKripovfi^vov. But why he should call St tiam."*^"' 
Chrysostom's interpretation forced, which is the common and usual in- 
terpretation, that hath no more reason than if a very thief should say 
to an honest man, " Thou art a thief, and not I." 

Fulke. I have shewed how it is enforced, because m Fulke, 8^ 
taking the participle passively you must either be enforced 
to admit a plain solecism, where none needeth ; or else yon 
must hardly understand the preposition Kara to govern the 
accusative Trdvra, as Montanus telleth you m Theophylact,, 

[} Critici Sacvi, Vol. vii. Pars ii. p. 98.] 


and as CEcumenius doth, and the sense will be no more 
than is contained in the word complementum : whereas by 
taking it actively, the wonderful goodness of Christ shineth 
toward his church ; who although he needeth nothing to 
make him perfect, as Chiysostom saith, but suppheth " all 
things in all things," yet it is his gracious pleasure to account 
himself imperfect without his church, which he hath united 
to him as his body, in which he is not perfect without all 
his members. 

As for your vain and tedious repetition, hke the cuckoo's 
song, of Beza's misprisions, I will not stand so often to an- 
swer, as you are disposed to rehearse them : only I must 
admonish the reader of a piece of your cunning, that in 
repeating the participle you change the tense, and for 
•rrXtjpovinei'ov you say TreTrX^povfjievov, as though it were 
the preterperfect tense, which cannot be taken but only 
passively. I know the printer shall bear the blame of this 
oversight, but in the mean time it maketh a little shew 
to a young Grecian, that considereth it not. 

Martin, 9. Martin. Is it forced, Beza, that Christ " is filled all in all" by the 
church ? Doth not St Paul in the very next words before call the church 

Eph. i. the fulness of Christ, saying, " \'VTiich is the fulness of him that is filled 

all in all" ? If the church be the fulness of him, then is he filled or 
hath his fulness of the church, so that he is not a maimed head without 
a body. This would St Paul say, if you would give him leave ; and this 
he doth say, whether you will or no. But what is the cause that they 
will not suffer the apostle to say so? "Because," saith Beza, "Christ 
needeth no such complement." And if he needeth it not, then may he 
be without a church, and consequently it is no absurdity, if the church 
hath been for many years not only invisible, but also not at all. Would 
a man easily at the first imagine or conceive, that there were such secret 
poison in their translation ? 

FuLKE,9. FulJce. You should urge Beza with a Latin epistle, 
seeing you are so earnest in the matter. I have told you 
that the sense of Chrysostom is true, but not flowing easily 
from the words of St Paul. That Christ hath his fulness 
of the church, it is granted by Beza upon the word plenitudo 
or complementum, as you cannot be ignorant, if you have 
read Beza's annotations, as you pretend. But you charge 
Beza to say, that "Christ needeth no such complement." Beza's 
words are, as I have set them down before, ut sciamus 


Christum per se non indigere hoc supplemento, " that we may- 
know that Christ of himself needeth not this supply." Is 
this all one with that you report him to say ? No, his 
saying was too long for your thievish bed, and therefore you 
cut o^ per se, "of himself," or " by himself." What say you? 
Dare you affirm that Christ of himself, in respect of his divine 
nature, hath need of any complement ? That Christ hath 
had always a church since the beginning of the Avorld, and 
shall have to the end, Beza doth plainly in an hundi'ed places 
confess : neither can it be otherwise proved by this trans- 
lation, nor yet by Beza's words "that Christ of himself is 
perfect and needeth no supply," but that it pleaseth him to 
become the head of the church, as of his body; which his 
divine and merciful pleasure seemg it is immutable, Christ 
cannot be without his church, nor the church without him. 
Yea, as Beza in plain words affirmeth, this is " our whole hope 
and consolation," that Christ esteemeth himself an unperfect 
head, and maimed of his members, except he have his church 
adjoined to him as his body. 

Martin. Again, it cometh from the same puddle of Geneva, that in Martin, 
their bibles (so called) the English Bezites translate against the unity of 
the catholic church. For whereas themselves are full of sects and dis- ^'^" '^^^' 
sensions, and the true church is knowm by unity, and hath this mark 
given her by Christ himself, in whose person Salomon speaking saith, 
Una est columba mea, that is, " One is my dove," or, " My dove is one ;" cant. vi. 8. 
therefore instead hereof the foresaid bible saith, " My dove is alone ;" '^'" * 
neither Hebrew nor Greek word having that signification, but being as ^'J. 
proper to signify one, as unus in Latin. 

FulJce. He that hath any nose may smell that this cen- Fulkb, 
sure cometh from the stinking puddle of popish malice. For ^^' 
he that saith "my dove is alone," Cant. vi. 8, doth a great deal 
more strongly avouch the unity of the church, than he that 
sayeth " my dove is one." For whereas Salomon sayeth in 
the verse going immediately before, " There are threescore 
queens, and fourscore concubines, and of the damsels without 

p Mt'a eVri irepia-Tepd fiov. Canticles vi. 8. " Una est columba 
mea," Vulg. "One is my dove, one is my darling," Cranmer 1562, 
Bishops' bible. *' My dove, my undefiled is but one ; she is the only 
one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her," Au- 
thorised version. "My dove is alone," Geneva, 1560.] 




number ;"" if you add thereto " my dove is one," it may be 
thought she is one of those last mentioned. But if you say, 
as the Geneva bible doth, but " my dove is alone, and my 
undefiled is the only daughter of her mother ;" now the 
church is excepted from all the rest of the queens, concu- 
bines, and damsels. And where you say, the Hebrew hath 
not that signification, I pray you go no further but even to 
the same verse, and tell me whether the sense be, that she 
is one of her mother's daughters, or the only daughter of 
her mother ? Here therefore (as almost everywhere) you 
do nothing, but seek a knot in a rush. 



Martin. But we beseech every indifferent reader, even for his soul's 
health, to consider that one point specially before mentioned, of their 
abandoning the name of " church" for so many years out of their Enghsh 
bibles, thereby to defeat the strongest argument that might and may 
possibly be brought against them and aU other heretics; to wit, the 
authority of the church, which is so many ways and so greatly recom- 
mended unto all Christians in holy scriptures. Consider, I pray you, 
what a maUcious intention they had herein: first, that the name 
" church" should never sound in the common people's ears out of the 
scriptures ; secondly, that as in other things, so in this also, it might 
seem to the ignorant a good argument against the authority of the 
church to say, " We find not this Avord ' church' in all the holy scrip- 
tures." For as iu other articles they say so, because they find not the 
express word in the holy scripture ; so did they well provide, that the 
word " church" in the holy scriptures should not stay or hinder their 
schismatical and heretical proceedings, as long as that was the only 
Enghsh translation that was read and hked among the people ; that is, 
so long till they had by preaching taken away the cathoUc church's 
credit and authority altogether among the ignorant, by opposing the 
scriptures thereunto which themselves had thus falsely translated. 

Fulke. We trust every indiiferent reader will consider, 
that they which translated the Greek word ecclesia, "the con- 
gregation," and admonished in the notes that they did by 
that word mean " the church ;" and they which in the creed 
might have translated ecclesiam catholicam, " the universal con- 
gregation," taught all children to say, " I believe the cathoUc 
church," could have no such devilish meaning as this mahcious 
slanderer of his own head doth imagine. For who ever 
heard any man reason thus : This word "church" is not found 
in the scripture, therefore the church must be despised, &c. ? 
Rather it is like (beside other reasons before alleged) that 


those first translators, having in the Old Testament out of the 
Hebrew translated the words caJial hadath, and such other for 
" the congregation" (where the papists will not translate "the 
church," although their Latin text be ecclesia, as appeareth 
Acts vii., where they call it "assembly"), thought good to retain 
the word "congregation" throughout the New Testament also, 
lest it might be thought of the ignorant, that God had no 
church in the time of the Old Testament. Howsoever it 
was, they departed neither from the word nor meaning of 
the Holy Ghost, nor from the usage of that word ecclesia^ 
which in the scripture signifieth as generally any assembly, 
as the word "congregation" doth in English. 



Heretical Translation against Priest and Priesthood. 

Mariin, 1. Martin. But because it may be, they will stand here upon their 
later translations which have the name "church," (because by that 
time they saw the absurdity of changing the name, and now their num- 
ber was increased, and themselves began to challenge to be the true 
church, though not the catholic ; and for former times when they were 
not, they devised an invisible church ;) if then they will stand upon 
their later translations, and refuse to j ustify the former ; let us demand 
of them concerning all their English translations, why and to what end 
they suppress the name "priest," translating it "elder" in all places 
where the holy scripture would signify by presbyter and presbyterium the 
"priests" and "priesthood" of the New Testament? 

FuLKE, 1. Fulke. If any error have escaped the former transla- 
tions, that hath been reformed in the later, aU reasonable 
men ought to be satisfied with om* own corrections. But 
because we are not charged with oversights and small faults 
committed either of ignorance or of negligence, but with 
shameless translations, wilful and heretical corruptions, we 
may not acknowledge any such crimes whereof our conscience 
is clear. That we " devised an invisible church," because we 
were few in number, when om* translations were first printed, 
it is a lewd slander. For being multiphed, as we are, (God 
be thanked !) we hold still that the catholic church, which is 
the mother of us all, is invisible, and that the church on 
earth may at some times be driven into such straits, as 
of the wicked it shall not be known. And this we held 
always, and not otherwise. Now touching the word pres- 
hyter and presbyterium, why we translate them not " priest 
and priesthood of the New Testament," we have given suf- 
ficient reason before : but because we are here urged afresh, 
we must answer as occasion shall be offered. 

Martin, 2. Martin. Understand, gentle reader, their wily policy therein is this: 
to take away the holy sacrifice of the mass, they take away both altar 
and priest ; because they know right well that these three, priest, sacri- 
fice, and altar, are dependents and consequents one of another, so that 
they cannot be separated. If there be an external sacrifice, there must 
be an external priesthood to offer it, an altar to offer the same upon. 


So had the Gentiles their sacrifices, priests, and altars; so had the Jews; 
so Christ himself, being a priest according to the order of Melchisedec, 
had a sacrifice, hjs body; and an altar, his cross, upon the which he 
oiFered it. And because he instituted this sacrifice to continue in his 
church for ever, in commemoration and representation of his death, 
therefore did he withal ordain his apostles priests at his last supper, 
there and then instituted the holy order of priesthood and priests (saying, 
Hoc facite, " Do this,") to offer the self-same sacrifice in a mystical and LukexxU. 
unbloody manner, until the world's end. 

FulJce. In denying the blasphemous sacrifice of the Fulke, 2, 
popish mass, with the altar and priesthood that thereto be- 
longeth, we use no wily policy, but with open mouth at all 
times, and in all places, we cry out upon it. The sacrifices, 
priests, and altars of the gentiles were abominable. The 
sacrifices of the Jews, their priests, and altars, are all accom- 
phshed and finished in the only sacrifice of Christ, our high 
priest, offered once for all upon the altar of the cross : 
which Christ our Saviour, seeing he is a priest according 
to the order of Melchisedec, hath an eternal priesthood, 
and such as passeth not by succession, Heb. vii. Therefore 
did not Christ at his last supper institute any external pro- 
pitiatory sacrifice of his body and blood, but a sacrament, 
joined with the spiritual sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving : 
which sacrament being administered by the ministers thereto 
appointed, the sacrifice is common to the whole church of 
the faithful, who are all spiritual priests, to offer up spiritual 
sacrifices, as much as the minister of the word and sa- 

Martin. To defeat all this, and to take away all external priesthood Martin, 2. 
and sacrifice, they by corrupt translation of the holy scriptures make 
them clean dumb, as though they had not a word of any such priests, 
or priesthood, as we speak of. Their bibles, we grant, have the name 
of priests very often, but that is when mention is made either of the 
priests of the Jews, or of the priests of the Gentiles (specially when 
they are reprehended and blamed in the holy scriptures) ; and in such 
places our adversaries have the name " priests" in their translations, to 
make the very name of " priest" odious among the common ignorant 
people. Again, they have also the name " priests," when they are taken 
for all manner of men, women, or children, that offer internal and 
spiritual sacrifices ; whereby our adversaries would falsely signify that 
there are no other priests, as one of them late freshly avoucheth, directly whitaker's. 
against St Augustine, who in one brief sentence distinguisheth priests *'' ^" 

[fulke. J 


properly so called in the church, and priests as it is a common name 

to all Christians. Lib. xx. de Civit. Dei, cap. 10.^ This name then of 

"priest" and "priesthood" properly so called, as St Augustine saith, 

which is an order distinct from the laity and vulgar people, ordained to 

offer Christ in an unbloody manner in sacrifice to his heavenly Father 

for us, to preach and minister the sacraments, and to be the pastors of 

the people, they wholly suppress in their translations ; and in all places 

where the holy scripture calleth them presbyteros, there they never 

translate "priests," but "elders." And that they do observe so duly and 

See the Puri- so warily, and with so full and general consent in all their English bibles, 

p. 159, and' as the puritaus do plainly confess, and M. Whitgift denieth it not, that a 

i>efence * man would wonder to see, how careful they are that the people may not 

i^ritans p o^ce hear the name of any such " priest " in all the holy scriptures. 


FuLKE, 3. Fulke. Now you have gotten a fine net to dance naked 
in, that no ignorant bhnd buzzard can see you. The masks 
of your net be the ambiguous and abusive significations of 
this word "priest"; which indeed, according to the original deri- 
vation from presbyter, should signify nothing else but an 
" elder," as we translate it, that is, one appointed to govern 
the church of God according to his word, but not to offer 
sacrifice for the quick and the dead. But by usurpation it 
is commonly taken to signify a sacrificer, such as lepev^ is 
in Greek, and sacerdos in Latin ; by which names the minis- 
ters of the gospel are never called by the Holy Ghost. 
After this common acceptation and use of this word "priest," 
we call the sacrificers of the Old Testament, and of the gen- 
tiles also, because the scripture calleth them by one name, 
cohanin, or 'lepel^ : but because the scripture calleth the minis- 
ters of the New Testament by divers other names, and never 
by the name of 'lepelst we thought it necessary to observe 
that distinction which we see the Holy Ghost so precisely 
hath observed. Therefore, where the scripture calleth them 
irpecr^vrepov^, we call them, according to the etymology, 
"elders," and not priests : which word is taken up by common 
usurpation to signify sacrificers of Jews, gentiles, or papists, 

\} Quod autem cum dixisset. In istis secunda mors non habet potestatem ; 
adjunxit atque ait, Sed erunt sacerdotes Deiet Christi, et regnabunt cum eo 
mille annis : non utique de solis episcopis et presbyteris dictum est, qui 
proprie jam vocantur in ecclesia sacerdotes ; sed sicut omnes Christianos 
dicimus propter mysticum chrisma, sic omnes sacerdotes, quoniam mem- 
bra sunt unius Sacerdotis. Augustin. de Civitat. Dei. Lib. xx. c. 10. 
Opera. Vol, vi. p. 944.] 


or else all Christians in respect of spiritual sacrifices. And 
although Augustine, and other of the ancient fathers, call the 
ministers of the New Testament by the name of sacerdotes, 
and lepeh, which signify the ministers of the Old Testament ; 
yet the authority of the Holy Ghost, making a perfect dis- 
tinction between these two appellations and functions, ought 
to be of more estimation with us. The fathers were content 
to speak in Latin and Greek, as the terms were taken up 
by the common people newly converted from gentihty ; but 
yet they retained the difference of the sacrificing priesthood 
of the one, and the ministerial office of the other. This 
may suffice therefore to render a reason, why we use not 
the word "priest" for "ministers" of the New Testament : not 
that we refuse it in respect of the etymology, but in respect 
of the use and common signification thereof. 

Martin. As for example in their translations, when there fell a Martin, 4. 
question about circumcision, " They determined that Paul and Barnabas irpea-^vTe. 
should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this ^resbyteros. 
question." Acts xv^ And again, " They were received of the congrega- 

[^ In Acts XV. 4, Ta>v anocTTuXcov Koi tcov Trpea^vrepaiv is ren- 
dered, in the Vulgate, "ab apostolis et senioribus:" also, in verses 
20, 22, 23. In verse 41, seniorum is used, though there is not any 
corresponding clause in the Greek. See also chap. xvi. 4. 

irpos Tovs aTToa-ToKovs Koi Trpta-^vrtpovs, Acts XV. 2, is rendered 
thus in the different versions: "To the apostolis and preestis," 
Wiclif, 1380. ''To the apostles and elders," Tyndale, Cranmer, 
Geneva, and Authorised. 

aTre8€x6Tj(Tav imo r^j eKKXrjcrlas koX rwv aTToaroKav koi twv npecr- 
^vTfpcov. Acts XV. 4. " They werun resceyued of the chirche, and of 
the apostlis, and of the elder men," Wiclif. "They were received of 
the congregation, and of the apostles and elders," Tyndale, Cranmer. 
"They were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders," 
Geneva version, and Authorised. 

2u»'>;;^^j;o-ai' 5e ol tiTrocrroXot koi ol npfo-^vTepoi. Acts XV. 6. " And 
the apostlis and elder men camen 'togidre," Wiclif. "And the apo- 
stles and elders came together," Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, Autho- 
rised. "And the apostles and ancients assembled," Rhemish version. 

Tore ebo^e toIs dTro(TT6Kois Koi rots irpea-^VTepois <tvv oXtj rfj tK- 
K\T](ria. Acts XV. 22. "Thanne it plesid to the apostles and to the 
elder men with alle the chirche," WicUf. "Then pleased it the 
apostles and elders with the whole congregation," Tyndale, Cranmer. 
" Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church," 
Geneva, Authorised version. Ol 



* The later tioii,* and of the apostles and elders." Again, " The apostles and elders 
"church." came together to reason of this matter." Again, " Then pleased it the 
apostles and elders with the whole congregation to send," &c. Again, 
" The apostles and elders send greeting," &c. Again, " They delivered 
them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and 
Acu xvi. elders." If in all these places they had translated " priests," as indeed 
they should have done according to the Greek word, it had then disad- 
vantaged them this much, that men would have thought both the dignity 
of priests to be great, and also their authority in councils, as being here 
joined with the apostles, to be greatly reverenced and obeyed. To keep 
the people from all such holy and reverent cogitations of priests, they 
put " elders," a name wherewith our holy christian forefathers' ears were 
never acquainted in that sense. 

FuLKE, 4. FuTke. In all those places by you rehearsed, Acts xv. 
and xvi., your own vulgar Latin text hath senior es, which you 
had rather call " ancients" (as the French Protestants call the 
governors of their churches,) than " elders," as we do. That 
popish priests should have any dignity or authority in 
councils, we do flatly deny : but that the seniors, ancients, 
elders, or priests (if you will) of the New Testament, should 
have as much dignity and authority as God's word doth 
afford them, we desire with all our hearts. That " our christian 
forefathers' ears were not acquainted with the name of ' elders,' " 
it was because the name of priest in their time sounded ac- 
cording to the etymology, and not according to the cor- 
ruption of the papists: otherwise I think their ears were 
as much acquainted with the name of " elders," which we use, 
as with the name of " ancients," and " seniors," that you 
have newly taken up, not for that they differ in signification 
from elders, but because you would differ from us. 

Ot oTTooToXoi KOI 01 TTpecT^iiTfpoi KOI ol abeX<pol rots Kara rfju 

'AvTioxfiav Koi 2vpiav x"'/'^'"- Acts xv. 23. " ApostHs and elder 

britheren," Wiclif. "The apostles, elders and brethren, send greet- 
ings," Tyndale, Cranmer. "The apostles and the elders and the bre- 
thren send greetings," Geneva. " The apostles and elders and brethren," 
Authorised version. 

■TTapedidovv avrois (pyXaaaeiv ra Soyixara ra K(Kpip.eva vnb rau 
dnocTToXojv Koi tmv Tvpea-fdvrepMV tcov iv 'lepovaaXijfj.. Acts xvi. 4. 
" They delivered them the decrees for to keep ordained of the apo- 
stles and elders," Tyndale, Geneva. "They dehvered them the de- 
crees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders," 
Cranmer, Authorised version.] 


Martin. But let us go forward. We have heard often and of old Martin, 5. 
time, of making of priests ; and of late years also, of making ministers ; 
but did ye ever hear in all England of making "elders" ? Yet by these 
men's translations it hath been in England a phrase of scripture this 
thirty year; but it must needs be very strange, that this making of 
"elders" hath not all this while been practised and known, no, not among 
themselves in any of their churches within the realm of England. To 
Titus they make the apostle say thus : " For this cause left I thee in Tit. i. 
Creta, that thou shouldst ordain elders in every city," &c. Again, of 
Paul and Barnabas : " When they had ordained elders by election in tous irpec- 
eveiy congregation." Acts xiv.^ If they had said plainly, as it is in the pr^byteros. 
Greek, and as our forefathers were wont to speak, and the truth is, 
" Titus was left in Creta to ordain priests in every city ;" and, " Paxil 
and Barnabas made priests in every church ;" then the people would 
have understood them : they know such speeches of old, and it had been 
their joy and comfort to hear it specified in holy scriptures. Now they 
are told another thing, in such newness of speeches and words, of " elders" 
to be made in every city and congregation, and yet not one city nor 
congregation to have any elders in all England, that we know not what 
is profane novelty of words, which the apostle willeth to be avoided, if i Tim. vi. 
this be not an exceeding profane novelty. • 

Fulke. When you have gotten a bauble, you make more Fulke, 6. 
of it than of the Tower of London; for you have never done 
playing with it. It must needs be a clerkly argument that 
is drawn from the vulgar speeches of "making priests," and 
"making nmiisters." Those priests or ministers that are made 
among us, are the same " elders" that the scripture in Greek 
calleth Trpe(x(ivTepovs, and the bishop's letters of orders, testi- 
fying of their ordination, caU them by none other name, but 
by the name of presbyteri, wliich the scripture useth : which 
term though in Enghsh you sound it priests, elders, ancients, 
seniors, or ministers, wliich is the common people's word, 

p KOI KaTacrrrjCTTjs Kara ttoXiv npta-^vTepovs. Titus i. 6. " And 
ordeyne preetis by citees," Wiclif. "And shouldest ordain elders in 
every city," Tyndale, Cranmer, 1639, 1662, Bishops' bible, 1614, 
Geneva ; Authorised version. 

XfipoTovqa-avTfs 8e avTo7s Trpea-^vrepovs kot fKKkT](riav. Acts xiv. 23. 
"Et cum constituissent illis per singulas ecclesias presbyteros," Vulg. 
V. 22. "And whanne thei hadden ordeyned preestis to him hi alle 
citees," Wiclif. "And when they had ordained them elders by elec- 
tion in every congregation," Tyndale, Cranmer. "And when they 
had ordained them elders by election in every church," Geneva. 
"And when they had ordained them elders in every church," Au- 
thorised version.] 


it is the same office which is described by the Holy Ghost, 
Tit. i., and in other places of scripture. As for the "profane 
novelty, " wherewith this word " elder" is changed, we will con- 
sider of it in the next section. 

Martin 6. Martin. That it is novelty to all English christian ears, it is evident. 

And it is also profane, because they do so English the Greek word of 

veipoTo- ordaining (for of the word presbyter we will speak more anon), as if 

veiv. they should translate Demosthenes or the laws of Athens concerning 

their choosing of magistrates, which was by giving voices with lifting 

up their hands. So they do force this word here, to induce the people's 

election; and yet in their churches in England the people elect not 

Xfi-poTovn- ministers, but their bishop. Whereas the holy scripture saith, they 

<raj/T«s ordained to the people ; and whatsoever force the word hath, it is here 

spoken of the apostles, and pertaineth not to the people ; and therefore 

KaTaarr,- in the place to Titus it is another word which cannot be forced further 

5ij"''j than to " ordain and appoint." And they might know, if malice and 

heresy would suffer them to see and confess it, that the holy scriptures, 

and fathers, and ecclesiastical custom, hath drawn this and the like 

words from their profane and common signification to a more peculiar 

and ecclesiastical speech: as episcopus, an "overseer" in Tully, is a 

"bishop" in the New Testament. 

FuLKE, 6. Fulke. The name " elders," used in our translation, is 
neither more novel to Enghsh ears, nor more profane to 
godly ears, than the name " ancients," which your translation 
useth. And yet I think the apostle, 1 Tim, vi., spake not 
of novelty to EngUsh ears, but of that which was new to 
the ears of the church of God. But the word " elders" (I 
ween) must be profane, because we "English the Greek word 
of ordaining, as if we should translate Demosthenes or the 
laws of Athens concerning the choosing of magistrates." Doth 
not tliis cavil redound more against the Holy Ghost, to accuse 
his style of profaneness, which useth the same words for the 
ordering of priests, that Demosthenes or the laws of Athens 

p XeipoTOV7](TavTfs 8e avTois irpea^vTepovs Kar eKKkrjaiav. Acts xiv. 23. 
"And when they had ordained them elders by election in every 
congregation," Tyndale, Cranmer. "In every church," Bishops' 
bible, Geneva, Authorised version. " Priests in every church," Rhemish 

Kai KaTa(TTq<Tr]s Kara ttoXiv Trpecr^vTepovs. Titus i. 5. " Ordain 
ciders," all the versions, except the Rhemish, which has, "Ordain 


might use for choosing of their magistrates ? But this word 
we " enforce (you say) to induce the people's election, and yet 
the bishop, not the people, elect our ministers." We mean not 
to enforce any other election than the word doth signify. 
Neither doth our bishops (if they do well) ordain any ministers 
or priests without the testimony of the people, or at least- 
wise, of such as be of most credit where they are known. 
Where you urge the pronoun avTo1<i, " to them," as though the 
people gave no consent nor testimony, it is more than ridicu- 
lous; and beside that, contrary to the practice of the primitive 
church for many hundred years after the apostles ; as also 
that you would enforce upon the words KaTaarfjaat, used by 
St Paul, Tit. i., as though that word of "constitution" did ex- 
clude election. That the word yeiporov'ia by the fathers of 
the church since the apostles hath been drawn to other signi- 
fication than it had before, it is no reason to teach us how 
it was used by the apostles. Election is an indifferent thing : 
the election of bishops, elders, or priests, is an holy thing, 
the hohness whereof is not included in the word -^eipoTovelv, 
but in the holy institution of Christ, and authority by his 
appointment delivered by imposition of the hands of the 

Martin. And concerning x^'P"''''"^'"' which we now speak of, St. Martin,?. 
Jerome^ teileth them in chap. Iviii. Esai. that it signifieth c/mcorwm Greg. Nazian. 
ordinationem, that is, " giving of holy orders," which is done not only j 4 g ?nf^d 
by prayer of the voice, but by imposition of the hand, according to St ti" "^"u 
Paul unto Timothy, manus cito nemini imposueris, " Impose or put hands po^ vVipo- 
quickly on no man :" that is, be not hasty or easy to give holy orders, joviav, and 
Where these great etymologists, that so strain the original nature of this IZ^'^poTo-^ 
word to profane stretching forth the hand in elections, may learn 1/1)6);. ignat. 
another ecclesiastical etymology thereof, as proper and as well deduced o/'bishmis, 
of the word as the other, to wit, putting forth the hand to give orders ; /^«'^'^'5f"'- 

.1 I'll ""'' 'fpoi'/O- 

and so they shall find it is all one with that which the apostle calleth yovai, x"- 
" imposition of hands," 1 Tim. iv. 2 Tim. i. ; and consequently, for poTovov<7i, 

P Plerique nostrorum xf*P'''''<'J'''a»'> id est, ordinationem clericorum, 
quse non solum ad imprecationem vocis, sed ad impositionem impletur 
manus; ne scilicet, ut in quibusdam risimus, vocis imprecatio clan- 
destina clericos ordinet nescientes. Comment. Hieronymi in Isaise 
c. Iviii. Opera, Vol. iii. p. 432.] 

[3 Gregor. Nazian. Edit. Paris. Morell. 1630. 1. 6. 7. The titles 
quoted are from 1 and 7.] 


TO van. "ordaining elders by election/' they should have said, "ordaining or 
er'/yeo-iT"' ™^king priests by imposition of hands ;" as elsewhere St Paul, 1 Tim. v. 
Twv xe*- and the Acts of the Apostles, Acts vi. and xiii., do speak in the ordain- 
'"""■ ing of the seven deacons, and of St Paul and Barnabas. 

FuLKE, 7. FulJce. The testimony of St Jerome, whom you cite. 
In isai. iviii. jQu understand not ; for speaking there of the extension of 
the finger, which the Septuaginta translate -^^eiporoviav, " and 
God requireth to be taken away," he saith : " Many of our 
interpreters do understand it of the ordination of clerks, 
which is performed not only at the imprecation of voice, but 
also at the imposition of hands, lest (as we have laughed at 
in some men) the secret imprecation of the voice should 
ordain clerks, being ignorant thereof," And so proceedeth 
to inveigh against the abuse of them that would ordain clerks 
of their basest officers and servitors, yea, at the request of 
fooHsh women. By wliich it is manifest, that his purpose is 
not to teU what -^eipoTovla properly doth signify, but that 
imposition of hands is required in lawful ordination, which 
many did understand by the word -^^eipoTovia, although in 
that place it signified no such matter. And therefore you 
must seek further authority to prove your ecclesiastical 
etymology, that -^eiporovia signifieth putting forth of the 
hands to give orders. The places you quote in the margin, 
out of the titles of Nazianzen's sermons, are to no purpose, 
although they were in the text of his homihes. For it ap- 
peareth not, although by synecdoche the whole order of 
making clerks were called -^eiporovia, that election was ex- 
cluded, where there was ordination by imposition of hands. 
As for that you cite out of Ignatius, [it] proveth against you, 
that -^eipoTovelv differeth from " imposition of hands ;" be- 
cause it is made a chstinct office from -^eipoBeTelv, that signi- 
fieth to " lay on hands " : and so yeiporovia and eTrcOea-is 
TWV -^eipuiv by your own author do differ. 

Martin, 8. Martin. But they are so profane and secular, that they translate the 
Greek word 7^peo■^vTepos• in all the New Testament, as if it had the old 
profane signification still, and were indifferent to signify the "ancients of 
the Jews," " the senators of Rome," " the elders of Lacedaemonia," and 

Tous 7rp6(r. "the christian clergy." Insomuch that they say, "Paul sent to Ephesus, 
and called the elders of the church," Acts xx. ; and yet they were such as 


had their flocks and cure of souls, as followeth in the same place. They 
make St Paul speak thus to Timothy : " Neglect not the gift/' (so they xapi<Tfia. 
had rather say than "gi-ace," lest holy orders should be a sacrament,) 1577. 
"given thee with the laying on of the hands of the eldership," or, "by tou irpeff- 
the authority of the eldership ^" 1 Tim. iv. What is this company of ^J;'^^pJ°^; 
" eldership" ? Somewhat they would say like to the apostle's word ; but 
they will not speak plainly, lest the world might hear out of the scrip- 
tures, that Timothy was made priest or bishop even as the use is in the 
catholic church at this day. Let the fourth council of Carthage speak can. 3. in the 
for both parts indifferently, and tell us the apostle's meaning : " A priest Where s". Au- 
when he taketh his orders, the bishop blessing him and holding his ^|sent and 
hand upon his head, let all the priests also that are present hold their subscnbed. 
hands by the bishop's hand upon his head." So do our priests at this 
day, when a bishop maketh priests ; and this is the laying on of the 
hands of the company of priests, which St Paul speaketh of, and 
which they translate, "the company of the eldership." Only their 
former translation of 1562 in tliis place (by what chance or conside- 
ration we know not) let fall out of the pen, "by the authority of 

FulJce. We desire not to be more holy in tlie English Fulke, 8. 
terms, than the Holy Ghost was in the Greek terms : whom 
if it pleased to use such a word as is indifferent to signify 
the " ancients of the Jews," " the senators of Rome," " the 
elders of Lacedaemonia," and " the christian clergy," why 
should we not truly translate it into Enghsh ? 

[^ Mj) a/xeXet roC iv (rot x'^P'-^l^'^'''o^> ° {8607] aoi Bia Trpo(pTjTe'ias 
fiera enideaeas rav x^ipav rov TTpeaj^vTepiov. 1 Tim. iv. 14. "Noli 
negligere gratiam, quae in te est, quse data est tibi per prophetiam," 
Vulg. " The grace which is in thee," Wiclif. " Despise not the gift 
that is in thee, wliich was given thee through prophecy, and with 
laying on of the hands of an elder," Tyndale, 1534. " Despise not the 
gift that is in thee, which was given thee through prophecy, with the 
laying on of hands by the authority of the priesthood," Cranmer, 
1539, 1562. "Despise not that gift that is in thee, which was given 
thee by prophecy, with the laying on of hands by the eldership," 
Geneva Test. 1557. "Despise not the gift, &c. with the laying on 
of the hands of the company of the eldership," Geneva bible, 1560. 
" Despise not the gift, &c. with the laying on of hands by the au- 
thority of the eldership," Bishops' bible, 1584. " Neglect not the 
grace that is in thee, which is given thee by prophecy, with impo- 
sition of the hands of priesthood," Rheims. 1582. " Neglect not the gift 
that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying 
on of the hands of the presbytery," Authorised version. " Despise not 
the gift," Edit. 1570, 1568.] 


But I pray you in good sadness, are we so profane and 
secular, Acts xx., in calling those whom Saint Paul sent for 
out of Ephesus, "elders"? What shall we say then of the 
vulgar Latin text, which calleth them majores natu, as 
though they obtained that degree by years, rather than by 
anything else ? And why do you so profanely and secularly 
call them the " ancients of the church "? Is there more pro- 
faneness and secularity in the EngUsh word "elders," than in 
the Latin word majores natu, or in your French-English 
term, "ancients"? Surely you do nothing but play with the 
noses of such as be ignorant in the tongues, and can perceive 
no similitude or difference of these words, but by the sound 
of their ears. But now for the word irpecrfivTeptov, used by 
St Paul, 1 Tim. iv,, which we call the " eldersliip," or " the 
company of elders," I have shewed before, how it is used by 
St Luke in his gospel, chap, xxii., and Acts xxii. You say, 
we "will not speak plainly, lest the world should hear that 
Timothy was made priest or bishop even as the use is in 
the catholic church at this day." And then you tell us, out 
of the council of Carthage, 4 chap, that all the priests present 
should lay their hands on the head of him that is ordained, 
together with the bishop. We know it well, and it is used 
in the church of England at this day. Only the term of 
" eldership" displeaseth you, when we mean thereby the com- 
pany of elders. But whereas the translators of the bible, 
1562, called it " priesthood," either by priesthood they meant 
the same that we do by " eldership ;" or if they meant by 
"priesthood" the office of priests, or elders, they were de- 
ceived. For irpea^vrepiov signifieth " a company of elders," 
as it is twice used by St Luke, and oftentimes by the ancient 
writers of the church, both Greeks and Latins. 

Martin, 9. Martin. Otherwise in all their Enghsh bibles all the bells ring 
one note^, as, " The elders that rule well are worthy of double honour." 

n Oi KaXws Tvpofcrrarfs irpfcrfBvTepoi dinXrjs ripfjs a^iovcrdaxrav. 
1 Tim. v. 17. "Qui bene praesunt presbyteri, duplici honore digni ha- 
beantur," Vulg. "The elders that rule well are worthy of double 
honour," Tyndale, 1534, Cranmer, 1539, 1562; Bishops' bible, 1584, 
Geneva, 1560. " Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double 
honour," Authorised version. " The priests that rule well, let them be 
esteemed worthy of double honour," Rheims. 


And, " Against an elder receive no accusation, but under two or three 
witnesses," 1 Tim. v. And, " If any be diseased among you, let him Toviirpetr- 
call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, and ^j^^^^°^^n- 
anoint him with oil," &c. Jacob, v. Whereas St Chrysostom out of o-i'us. 
this place proveth the high dignity of priests in remitting sins, in his sacerdotio. 
book entitled, " Of Priesthood," unless they will translate that title irepl lepw- 
also, " Of Eldership." Again, they make St Peter say thus : " The elders <^'''")«- 
which are among you I exhort, which am also an elder, feed ye Clirist's 
flock, as much as lieth in you," &c. 1 Pet. v. 

FulJce. In these three texts you triumph not a little, Fulke, 9. 
because your vulgar Latin text hath the Greek word pres- 
byter. "The high dignity of priests, or elders, in remitting 
sins," we acknowledge with Chrysostom, in liis book entitled 
" Of Priesthood :" which seeing it is TrejoJ \ep(aavvr}<i, we will 
never translate " eldersliip." But we may lawfully wish, that 
both Chrysostom and other ancient writers had kept that 
distinction of terms, which the apostles and evangehsts did so 
precisely observe. In the last text, 1 Pet. v., your vulgar Latin 
saith, seniores and consenior, yourselves in English, " seniors," 
and " fellow senior^" What trespass then have we committed, 
in saying " elders," and " fellow elder," or an elder also ? 

Martin. Where if they will tell us, as also in certain other places, Martin, 
that our Latin translation hath seniores, and majores natu : we tell 
them, as heretofore we have told them, that this is nothing to them, s. Hierom 

' J o > readeth, 

who profess to translate the Greek. Again we say, that if they meant Presbyteros 

6£0 cornpr6S- 

no worse than the old Latin translator did, they woiild be as indifferent byter, £p. 85. 
as he to have said sometime " priests" and " priesthood," when he hath fn i. ad^oai. 

proving the 

Kara irpea^vrepov KaTTjyoplav fiTj 7rapaSe;^ov. 1 Tim. v. 19. " Ad- 
versus presbyterum accusationem noli recipere," Vulg. " Against an 
elder receive none accusation," Tyndale, Cranmer, Bishops' bible, 
Geneva, Authorised version. " Against a priest receive not accusation," 
Wiclif, Rheims. 

TrpocrKaXfaaadco tovs Trptcr^vTepovs ttjs eKKKTjcrias. James v. 14. 
"Inducat presbyteros ecclesiae," Vulg. "Let him call for the elders 
of the congregation," Tyndale, Cranmer. " Let him call for the elders 
of the chiu'ch," Geneva, Bishops' bible, 1584. Authorised version. "Let 
him bring in the priests of the church," Rheims. Upea-^vrepovs roiis 
iv vfiiv TrapaKoXu) 6 (rvp.7rpecr^vT€pos. 1 Pet. v. 1. " Seniores ergo, qui in 
vobis sunt, obsecro, consenior," Vulg. " The elders which are among 
you, I exhort, which am also an elder," Tyndale, Cranmer, Bishops' 
bible, Geneva, Authorised version. " The seniors therefore that are among 
you, I beseech, myself a fellow senior with them," Rheims, 1582.3 




dignity of 
priests ; and 
yet in Gal. iv. 
he readeth 
according to 
the vulgar 
Latin text, 
Seniores in 
vobis rogo 
consenior et 
ipse. Where- 
by it is evi- 
dent, that se- 
nior here, and 
in the Acts, 
is a priest, 
and not con- 
trary, pres- 
byter, an 

the words presbyteros and presbyterium ; as we are indifferent in our 
translation, saying " seniors" and " ancients," when we find it so in our 
Latin; being well assured that by sundry words he meant but one 
thmg, as in Greek it is but one, and as both Erasmus and also Beza 
himself always translate it, keeping the name presbyter and presbyteri ; 
of whom by reason they should have learned, rather than of our Latin 
translator, whom otherwise they condemn. And if they say they do 
follow them, and not him, because they translate not senior and 
major natu, but the word presbyter, or Trpea^vrepos, an " elder," in all 
places ; we tell them, and herein we convent their conscience, that they 
do it to take away the external priesthood of the New Testament, and 
to suppress the name " priest," against the ecclesiastical, and (as now 
since Christ) veiy proper and usual signification thereof, in the New 
Testament, councils, and fathers, in all common writing and speaking ; 
specially the Latin presbyter, which grew to this signification out of the 
Greek, in the foresaid places of holy scripture. 


Fulke. I have told you already, and you could not but 
know that it should be told you, that seemg we translate 
none otherwise than your vulgar Latin translator, we are 
no more to be blamed of falsehood, corruption, profaneness, 
novelty, than he is, who professed to translate the Greek 
as much as we do. But if we had meant no worse (say you) 
than he, we would have been as indifferent to have said some- 
times " priest" and " priesthood," where he hath the word 
presbyteros and presbyterium. I answer, presbyterium he 
hath but once, and for that you have " priesthood" once, as you 
confessed before. And if the name " priest" were of the same 
understanding in common Enghsh that the word presbyter 
is, from whence it is derived, we would never have sought 
more words for it, than we do for the words "bishop," "dea- 
con," and such like. 

The words presbyter and presbyterium you confess 
that Beza doth always use : and so do we, when we write 
or speak Latin ; but we cannot use them in Enghsh, except 
we should be as fond as you in your gratis, depositum, and 
such fantasies. And to tell you plauily, as om* conscience 
beareth us witness, we will never dissemble, that we avoid 
that word "' priest," as it is used to signify a sacrificer, because 
we would shew a perfect distinction between the priesthood 
of the law and the ministry of the gospel, between sacerdos 
and presbyter, a sacrificer and a governor of the church. 
And I appeal to your own conscience, whether, if the English 


word " priest" were as indifferent as presbyter, and sounded 
no more towards a sacrifice than either presbyter or your own 
English words " ancient" and " senior," whether (I say) you 
would make so much ado about it, for to have it in all places 
of the New Testament, where Trpea^vrepo's is in the Greek ? 
But seeing yoiu* popish sacrificing power, and blasphemous 
sacrifice of your mass, hath no manner ground at all in the 
holy scriptures, either in the original Greek, or in your own 
Latin translation, you are driven to seek a silly shadow for 
it in the abusive acception and sounding of the English word 
" priest" and " priesthood." And therefore you do, in the 
second section of tliis chapter, in great earnest affirm, that 
" priest, sacrifice, and altar" are dependents, and consequents, 
one of another, so that they cannot be separated. If you should 
say in Latin sacerdos, sacrificium, altare, or in Greek Upevt;, 
Ova'ia r] 'Trpocrcpopa, Kal Ouaiao'T^piov be such consequents, 
we will also subscribe unto you : but if you will change the 
word, and say presbyter, sacrificium, altare, or irpea^vTc- 
po9, Ouar'ia, OvaiaaTtjpiov, every learned man's ears will glow, 
to hear you say they are dependents and consequents in- 
separable. Therefore we must needs cHstinguish of the word 
" priest" in your corollary : for [if] you mean thereby sacerdo- 
tem, we grant the consequence of sacrifice and altar ; but 
if you mean presbyterium \j)resbyterimi], we deny that ever 
God joined those three in an unseparable band ; or that 
presbyter, in that he is presbyter, hath any thing to do 
with sacrifice or altar, more than senior, or major natu, or 
ancient, or elder. 

Martin. Insomuch that immediately in the first canons and councils Martin, 
of the apostles and their successors, nothing is more common than this 
distinction of ecclesiastical degrees and names, si episcopiis, vel presbyter, ApstXonc.i. 
vel diaconus^, &c. : " If any bishop, or priest, or deacon" do this or that, i^at^conc. 
Which if the protestants or Calvinists will translate after their manner [^^^'pet ' v^^ 
thus, " If a bishop, or elder, or deacon," &c., they do against themselves, 
which make presbyter or " elder" a common name to all ecclesiastical 
persons, and not a peculiar degree next unto a bishop. So that either 
they must condemn all antiquity for placing presbyter in the second 
degree after a bishop; or they must translate it "priest," as we do; or 
they must make "elder" to be their second degree, and so put "minister" 
out of place. 

[^ Aut, not vel, in Labbe, Vol. i, p. 52.] 





Fulke. The distinction of episcopus and presbyter to 
signify several offices, we grant to be of great antiquity ; 
albeit we may not admit the counterfeit canons of the apostles, 
nor the epistles of Ignatius, for such men's writings as they 
bear the name to be. We make presbyter, or " elder," a 
common name to all ecclesiastical persons, none otherwise than 
you do this word " priest :" for deacons with us are not 
called presbyteri, or " elders." As for the distinction of 
bishops' and elders' names, which the scripture taketh for the 
same, doth no more " condemn all antiquity" in us, than in you, 
who acknowledge that the scripture useth those names with- 
out distinction, in your note upon Acts xx. v. 28, where they 
are called " bishops," which before, v. 17, are called irpeal^u- 
^epoi, which you translate "ancients," and expound "priests;" 
and thus you write : " Bishops or priests (for those names 
were sometimes used indifferently), governors of the church 
of God, and placed in that room and high function by the 
Holy Ghost." But it seemeth you have small regard to 
defend your own notes, so you might find occasion to quarrel 
at our words. 



S. Tim. iii. 
Bib. 1577. 


Martin. And here we must ask them, how this name "minister" 
came to be a degree distinct from a deacon, whereas by their own rule 
of translation, "deacon" is nothing else but a "minister;" and why- 
keep they the old and usual ecclesiastical name of " deacon" in trans- 
lating diaconus, and not the name of " priest" in translating presbyter ? 
Doth not " priest" come of presbyter as certainly and as agreeably as 
"deacon" of diaconus? Doth not also the French and Italian word 
for "priest" come directly from the same? "Will you always follow 
fancy and not reason, do what you list, translate as you list, and not as 
the truth is, and that in the holy scriptures, which you boast and vaunt 
so much of ? Because yourselves have them whom you call bishops, the 
name " bishops" is in your English bibles ; which otherwise by your 
own rule of translation should be called an "overseer" or "superin- 
tendent :" likewise " deacon" you are content to use as an ecclesiastical 
word so used in antiquity, because you also have those whom you call 
"deacons." Only "priests" must be turned contemptuously out of the 
text of the holy scriptures, and " elders" put in their place, because 
you have no priests, nor will none of them, and because that is in con- 
troversy between us. And as for elders, you have none permitted in 
England, for fear of overthrowing your bishops' office and the Queen's 
supreme government in all spiritual things and causes. Is not this to 
follow the humour of your heresy, by Machiavel's politic rules, without 
any fear of God ? 


Fulke. Here I must answer you, that we have no Fulke, 
degree of ministers distinct from deacons, but by vulgar and 12. 
popular use of speaking, which we are not curious to control. 
Otherwise, in truth, we account bishops, elders, and deacons, 
all ministers of the church. It is no more, therefore, but 
the common speech of men, which useth that word, which is 
common to all ecclesiastical persons, as peculiar to the elders, 
or priests. Why we keep the name of " deacons" in translating 
diaconus, rather than of " priests" in translating presbyter, 
I have told you often before. The name " priest" being by 
long abuse of speech apphed to signify sacrificers of the Old 
Testament, called 'lepfi^, we could not give the same name 
to the ministers of the New Testament, except we had some 
other name, whereby to call the ministers of the Old Testa- 
ment : wherein we follow reason, and not fancy ; for it is 
great reason we should retain that difference in names of 
the ministers of both the testaments, wliich the Holy Ghost 
doth always observe. But you follow fancy altogether, 
imagining that " priests" only are put out of the text, because 
we have no priests : whereas we have priests as well as we 
have bishops and deacons ; and so they are called in our Book 
of Common Prayer indifferently " priests," or " ministers." 
And where you say, we "have no elders permitted in England," 
it is false ; for those that are commonly called bishops, ministers, 
or priests among us, be such " elders" as the scripture com- 
mendeth unto us. And although we have not such a con- 
sistory of elders of government, as in the primitive church 
they had, and many churches at this day have ; yet have 
we also elders of government to exercise discipline, as arch- 
bishops, and bishops, with their chancellors, archdeacons, 
commissaries, officials ; in whom if any defect be, we wish 
it may be reformed according to the word of God. 

Martin. "Apostles" you say for the most part in your translations (not Martin, 
always), as we do, and " prophets," and "evangelists," and "angels," and ^^• 
such like ; and wheresoever there is no matter of controversy between you 
and us, there you can plead very gravely for keeping the ancient ecclesias- 
tical words ; as your master Beza, for example, beside many other places Beza in cap. 
where he bitterly rebuketh his fellow Castaleon's translation, in one place 25, &e. 
writeth thus : " I cannot in this place dissemble the boldness of certain jn 3"Sp. ' 
men, which would God it rested within the compass of words only ! ^^^^' '^"™' 
These men therefore, concerning the word baptizing, though used of Baptize. 






sacred writers in the mystery or sacrament of the new testament, and 
for so many years after, by the secret consent of all churches, consecrated 
to this one sacrament, so that it is now grown into the vulgar speeches 
almost of all nations, yet they dare presume rashly to change it, and in 
place thereof to use the word " washing." Delicate men forsooth, which 
neither are moved with the perpetual authority of so many ages, nor by 
the daily custom of the vulgar speech can be brought to think that 
lawful for divines, which aU men grant to other masters and professors of 
arts ; that is, to retain and hold that as their own, which by long use and 
in good faith they have truly possessed. Neither may they pretend the 
authority of some ancient writers, as that Cyprian saith tingentes 
for baptizantes, and Tertullian in a certain place calleth sequestrem 
for mediatorem. For that which was to those ancients as it were new, 
to us is old : and even then, that the selfsame words which we now use 
were familiar to the church, it is evident, because it is very seldom that 
they speak otherwise. But these men by this novelty seek after vain 
glory," &c. 



Fulke. If in any place we use not tlie name of the 
"apostles," "prophets," "evangelists," "angels," and such like, 
we are able to give as sufficient a reason why we translate 
those words according to their general signification, as you 
for translating sometime baptismata, "washings," and not bap- 
tisms ; ecclesia " the assembly," and not the church, with such 
like. Therefore as Castaleo and such other heretics are 
justly reprehended by Beza for leaving (without cause) the 
usual ecclesiastical terms ; so when good cause or necessity 
requireth not to use them, it were superstition, yea, and 
almost madness sometimes, in translating to use them ; as 
to call the Pharisees' washings " baptisms," or the assembly 
of the Ephesian idolaters " the church ;" yet both in Greek and 
Latin the words are baptismata, ecclesia. 


Confut. of 
the Keas. 
fol. 35. 

Martin. He speaketh against Castaleon, who in his new Latin trans- 
lation of the bible changed all ecclesiastical words into profane and 
heathenish ; as angelos into genios, prophetas into fatidicos, templum into 
fanum, and so forth. But that which he did for foolish affectation of 
fineness and style, do not our English Calvinists the very same, when they 
list, for furthering their heresies ? When the holy scripture saith " idols," 
according as Christians have always understood it, for false gods, they 
come and tell us out of Homer and the lexicons, that it may signify an 
image, and therefore so they translate it. Do they not the like in the 
Greek word that by ecclesiastical use signifieth " penance," and " doing 
penance," when they argue out of Plutarch, and by the profane sense 
thereof, that it is nothing else but changing of the mind or amendment 


of life ? Whereas in the Greek church paenitentes, that is, they that 
were in the course of penance, and excluded from the church, as 
catechumeni and energumeni, till they had accomplished their penance, 
the very same are called in the Greek oi iv fifravoia ovrts. 

Fulke. That Castaleo " did for foolish affectation of fine- Fulke, 
ness," you slander us to do "for furtheriner of heresy." And 

'^ . . 1 Dionys. Ec. 

here again with loathsomeness you repeat your rotten quarrel Hier. cap. 3. 
of idols translated " images," wliich was to discover youi' abo- 
minable idolatry, cloaked under a blind and false distinction 
of images and idols. The word fxeravoia we translate "re- 
pentance ;" as you do sometimes, when you cannot for shame 
use your popish term " penance," by which you understand 
satisfaction for sin, wliich in divers places you are enforced to 
give over in the plain field, and to use the term "repentance;" 
as in the fifth of the Acts^ : "This Prince and Saviour God 
hath exalted with his right hand to give repentance to Israel 
and remission of sins^ ;" likewise Acts xi., where the scripture 
speaketh of God giving "repentance to the gentiles." And 
when you speak of Judas, you say also " repentmg him^ :" so 
that the repentance of Judas, and that which God gave to 
Israel and to the gentiles, is uttered in one term ; whereas 
else you have ahnost everywhere "penance," and "doing of 
penance." Wliere you say we make repentance nothing but 
changing of the mind, or amendment of life, you speak mi- 
truly ; for not every changing of the mind is godly repent- 
ance, neither is only amendment of life all repentance : but 
there must be contrition and sorrow for the life past. That 
in the Greek chm'ch they that were catechumeni, and ener- 

[} Martin appears to have had the following passage of the 19th 
Canon of the Council of Laodicea in liis mind, when he wrote this: 

" Mera to i^iKBfiv tovs Karrj^ovnevovs, raiv iv fieravoia ttjv (V)(riv yiveadai. 
Quibus (catechumenis) egressis, orent etiam hi qui in poenitentia sunt 
constituti." £d. 1559. p. 34.] 

P bovvai fieravoLav ra 'icrparjX koI acjyea-tv afiapnSv, Acts V. 31. " To 
give repentance to Israel and remission of sins," Rhemish Version, 1582.] 

P "Apaye Kol toIs edveaiv 6 Qebs ttjv peravoiav ebaiKev els C^rjv, 
Acts xi. 18. "God then to the Gentiles also hath given repentance 
unto life," Rhemish version, 1582.]] 

Q* oTi KareKpidt], neTap.e\r]de\s, Matt, xxvii. "Seeing that he was 
condemned, repenting himself," Rhemish version.] 

[fulke. J 


gumeni, were called ev tieravoiq. oi/res, " such as are in re- 
pentance," it maketli nothing against the true use of the Greek 
word, as it is used in the scriptures. We know the discipline 
of the chiu'ch appointed an outward exercise of praying, fast- 
ing, and other humbling, for a trial and testimony of true 
and hearty repentance, which was sometimes called by the 
name of repentance by a metonymia signi ; which he that wiU 
enforce by that name to be parts of true and inward re- 
pentance, is as wise as he that wiU contend the ivy-bush to 
be a part of wine, because some men, seeing it hang over the 
house, will say, Lo, here is wine. 

Martin, Martin. They therefore leaving this ecclesiastical signification, and 

■'^' translating it according to Plutarch, do they not much like to Castaleo ? 

Do they not the same against the famous and ancient distinction of 
Latria. latria and duUa, when they tell us out of Eustathius upon Homer, and 

Bez'rin 4. Aristophaues the grammarian, that these two are all one ? Wliereas we 
Mat. num. 10. ppove out of St Augustine' in many places, the second council of Nice, 
and Xa- Venerable Bede, and the long custom of the church, that according to 
^riptures 'ai^ *^^ ccclesiastical sense and use deduced out of the scriptures they differ 
Jj^o^t always yery much. Do they not the like in mysterium and sacramentum, which 

service and 
honour pro- 
per to God, 

civit^Deifii. {} Hic est euim divinitati vel, si expressius dicendum est, deitati 
debitus cultus, propter quem uno verbo significandum quoniam mihi 
satis idoneum non occurrit Latinum, Graeco ubi necesse est insinuo quid 
velim dicere. Aarpeiav quippe nostri, ubicumque sanctarum scrip- 
turarum positum est, interpretati sunt servitutem. Sed ea servitus, quae 
debetur hominibus, secundum quam praecepit apostolus servos dominis 
suis subditos esse debere, alio nomine Greece nuncupari solet : '^arpfia 
vero, secundum consuetudinem qua locuti sunt qui nobis divina eloquia 
condiderimt, aut semper, aut tam frequenter ut paene semper, ea dicitur 
servitus quae pertinet ad colendum Deum. Augustini de Civitate Dei, 
Lib. X. c. i. Opera, Vol. vii. p. 381.] 

\y Upon the 33rd verse of the 23rd chapter of Exodus, Augustine 
thus speaks : Hic Graecus BovXevajjs habet, non 'Xarpeva-rjs. Unde intelli- 
gitur, quia et BovXtia debetur Deo tanquam Domino, Xarpeia vero non- 
nisi Deo tanquam Deo. Quaestiones in Exodum. xciv. Opera, Vol. iii. 
p. 711. 

This distinction between the two words is frequently alluded to 
by Augustine: for instance, in his treatise against the sei-mon of the 
Arians, he says, " Et tamen, si apertissime legerent in Sanctis scripturis 
Salomonem regem lignis et lapidibus jussu Dei templum struxisse Spi- 
ritui Sancto, Deum esse Spiritum Sanctum dubitare non possent, cui 
tanta religionis servitus, quae latria dicitur, legitime exhiberetur in 

c. 1. 


they translate a secret in the profane sense; whereas they know how these Bib. an. isea. 

words are otherwise taken, both in Greek and Latin, in the church of 

God ? Did they not the like in the word ecdesia, when they translated 

it nothing else but "congregation"? Do they not the like in x^'-P°'^'^v''-'^> 

which they translate, ordaining by election, as it was in the profane court 

of Athens; whereas St Hierom telleth them, that ecclesiastical writers 

take it for giving holy orders by imposition of hands ? Do they not the 

like in many other words, wheresoever it serveth their heretical purpose? 

And as for profane translation, is there any more profane than Beza 

himself, that so often in his annotations reprehendeth the old translation 

by the authority of Tully and Terence, Homer and Aristophanes, and 

the like profane authors ? yea, so fondly and childishly, that for olfactum, 

which Erasmus useth, as Pliny's word, he will needs say odoratum, 

because it is Tally's word, 

Fulke. In translating the scripture, we use the word " re- Fulke, 
pentance" in the same signification that the scripture useth ■^^■ 
lJi€Tavoia. In other ecclesiastical writers, we can neverthe- 
less understand it as they mean it. Concerning that un- 
learned distinction of latria and dulia, we do rightly to shew 
out of profane writers that it is vain, and that the terms 
signify all one ; and you yourself confess in your marginal 
note, that sometimes in the scriptm*e Xarpevco and Xarpeia 

populo Dei, ut illi etiam tern plum fabricaretur; cum Dominus dicat, 
Dominum Deum tuum adorabis, et illi soli servies: quod in Graeco est, 
XaTpevcreis." Cap. XX. also ca:p. xxix. Opera, Vol. viii. pp. 980 
and 987. 

Again, in his treatise on the Trinity, cap. xiii. he says, " Maxime 
vero illo loco satis claret, quod Spiritus Sanctus non sit creatura, ubi 
jubemur non servire creaturoe, sed creatori : non eo modo quo jubemur 
per caritatem servire invicem, quod est Graece dovXeveiv, sed eo modo 
quo tantum Deo servitur, quod est Graece Xarpevetv." (Opera, Vol. viii. 
p. 1164.) Other passages of a similar kind maybe quoted; but these 
are sufficient to shew the opinion of Augustine. 

On the other hand may be produced the following passages of scrip- 
ture, to shew that it is doubtful whether there exists this nice distinction 
betwixt the two words. See Matt. vi. 24. Luke xvi. 13. Romans vii. 25 ; 
xvi. 18. Col. iii. 24. Gal. iv. 8. 1 Thess. i. 9. in which places dovXevco 
is used for serving God. The two words are frequently used promis- 
cuously in scripture : Xarpevai is applied to the service of men, as well 
as God, Compare Deut, xxviii. 48. Lev. xxiii. 7, where Xarpevco is used 
in a servile sense. In the whole of the 4th chapter of Galatians 8ovXevco 
is applied to the worship of God. Nonnus interprets Xarpeia by 8ov- 
Xoa-vvT] and 8ovXos : for, says Casaubon, that unsound distinction which 
confines Xarpeia to God, and BovXoa-iivrj to angels, had not arisen. 





do not signify the service and honour that is proper to 
God: as for SovXevw, [it] is in more than an hundred places 
used for the service and honour proper to God. St Augus- 
tine, you confess afterward, knew well but one tongue ; and 
therefore he is no meet judge of distinction of Greek words. 
Bede foUoweth Augustine's error. The idolaters of the 
second Nicene council were glad of a cloak for the rain, con- 
trary to the property of their tongue ; as is proved by 
Eustathius, Aristophanes, Xenophon, Suidas, and by later 
writers, no protestants, Laurentius Valla, and Ludovicus 
Vivos. Mysterium we translate a "secret," or a "mystery," in- 
differently ; the word signifying no more an holy secret, than 
a profane and abominable secret, as the " mystery of iniquity," 
" the mystery of Babylon." For the words ecclesia, and 
')^€ipoTovia, we have said sufficiently, and very lately. To 
use Tully's words, when they answer the Greek as properly 
as any barbarous words, or less commendable words, I know 
not why it should be counted blame-worthy in Beza, or in 
any man, except it be of such a sycophant as liketh nothing 
but that which savoureth of his own spittle. 


Martin. But to return to our English translators : do not they the 
like to profane Castaleo, and do they not the very same that Beza their 
master so largely reprehendeth, when they translate presbyterum "an 
elder ?" Is it not all one fault to translate so, and to translate, as Castaleo 
doth, baptismum washing ? Hath not presbyter heen a peculiar and usual 
word for a priest, as long as haptismus for the sacrament of regeneration, 
which Castaleo altering into a common and profane word, is worthily 
reprehended ? We will prove it hath, not for their sake, who know it 
well enough, but for the reader's sake, whom they abuse, as if they 
knew it not. 



Fulke. If it be as great a fault in us to translate pres- 
byteriim, "an elder,"" as for Castaleo to translate baptismum 
" washing ;'"* your vulgar translator must be in the same fault 
with us, which so often traxislaiQilx presbyteros, seniores, or 
major es natu, which signify "elders," and not "priests:" it is 
a vain thing therefore that you promise to prove, that "pres- 
byter hath been a peculiar and usual word for a 'priest,'' as 
long as baptismus for the sacrament of regeneration." For 
peculiar you can never prove it, seeing it is used in the 
scripture so often for such elders and ancients as you your- 


self would not call priests. So that, if you clid translate 
the whole bible out of your own vulgar Latin, you must 
translate presbyter thrice an " elder" or " ancient," for once 
a " priest." 

Martin, In the first and second canon of the apostles we read thus : Martin, 
Episcopus a duobus aut tribus episcopis ordinetur. Presbyter ab uno 
episcopo ordinetur, et diaconus, et alii clerici^ : that is, " Let a bishop be ^rlia^h^slg^" 
consecrated or ordained by two or three bishops." " Let a priest be ^lom fhe"po- 
made by one bishop." See in the fourth council of Carthage the diverse sties' time, 

. not an elder. 

manner of consecrating bishops, priests, deacons, &c. where St Angus- Can. 2, 3, 4. 
tine was present and subscribed. Again, Si quis presbyter contemnens ^.^^ ^ j 
cpiscopiun suiim, &:c. : " If any priest contemning his bishop," make a 32- 
several congregation, and erect another altar, that is, make a schism or 
heresy, let him be deposed. So did Arius, being a priest, agamst his 
bishop Alexander. Again, " priests and deacons, let them attempt to do can. 40.* 
notliing without the bishop." The first council of Nice saith : " The holy can. 3.3 
synod by all means forbiddeth, that neither bishop, nor priest, nor deacon, 
&c., have with them any foreign woman, but the mother, or sister, &c., 
in whom there is no suspicion." Again, " It is told the holy councU, can. 14.< 
that in certain places and cities deacons give the sacraments to priests. 
This neither rule nor custom hath delivered, that they which have not 
authority to offer the sacrifice, should give to them that offer the body 
of Christ." The third councU of Carthage, wherein St Augustine was, 
and to the which he subscribed, decreeth, "That in the sacraments of can. 24 n 
the body and blood of Christ, there be no more offered than our Lord 
himself delivered, that is, bread and wine mingled with water." WTiich 
the sixth general councU of Constantinople repeating and confirming, 
addeth : " If therefore any bishop or priest do not according to the order el -ris: oZv 
given by the apostles, mingling water with wine, but offer an unmingled ^- -^ne^^l' 
sacrifice, let him be deposed," &c. But of these speeches all councils be xe^os". 
full : where we would gladly know of these new translators, how presby- 
ter must be translated, either an " elder," or a " priest." 

Fulke. I think you have clean forgotten your promise Fulke, 
so lately made. That tliis word presbyter hath always been '* 
peculiar for a "priest," you bring many testimonies, some coun- 
terfeit, some authentical, in which the name of Trjoecr/Byrejoo? 
and presbyter is fomid ; but that in all them it is pecuUar 

Q Vel tribus Episcopis. Et reliqui cleri. Canon xxx. Concilia edit. 
Labbe, Vol. i. p. 26, not. xxxii.] 

[2 Can. xxxviii. Edit. Labbe.] P Can. iii. Vol. 11. p. 28.] 

C* Can. xviii.] P Vol. 11. p. 1170.] 

\^ Can. xxxii. Vol. vi. p. 1157.] 




for a " priest," you shew not at all. Some colour it hath of 
that you say, in the 14th canon of the Nicene coimcil, and 
Carth. iii. c. 24, repeated Const, vi., where mention is made 
of sacrifice and oiFering ; for so they did improperly call 
the administration of the Lord's supper, in respect of the sacri- 
fice of thanksgiving that was offered therein. After which 
phrase also, they called the ministers lepeh and sacerdotes, 
"sacrificers." So they called that which indeed was a table 
of wood, an altar, and the inferior ministers Levites ; by 
which it appeareth they did rather allude to the names used 
in the Old Testament, than acknowledged a sacrificing priest- 
hood, that might as properly be so called, as the priesthood 
after the order of Aaron was. Sometime they used the 
name of " sacrifice" and sacerdos generally, for religious ser- 
vice, and the minister of religion, as the gentiles did. And 
hereof it is, that we read often of the sacrifices of bread and 
wine ; and in the canon of Carthage by you cited. Nee 
amplius in sacrificiis offeratur quam de uvis et frumentis^ : 
"And let no more be offered in the sacrifices, than that which 
is made of grapes and corn." This was bread and wine, not 
the natural body and blood of Christ. Wherefore these 
improper speeches prove not a sacrificing priesthood, whereby 
the natural body and blood of Christ should be offered in the 
mass, which is the mark you shoot at. 


Ep. 2. ad 
TO irpeer- 

OL TTjOeo-jSu- 

in c. 7- Mi- 

Ep. 85. ad 
Epitaph. Ne- 
potiani, c. 9. 

Martin. Do not all the fathers speak after the same manner, making 
always this distinction of "bishop" and "priest,'' as of the first and 
second degree? St Ignatius, the apostle's scholar, doth he not place 
preshyterium, as he calleth it, and presbyteros, " priests," or the " college 
of priests," next after " bishops," and " deacons" in the third place, re- 
peating it no less than thrice in one epistle, and commending the dignity 
of all three unto the people ? Doth not St Jerome the very same, saying, 
" Let us honour a bishop, do reverence to a priest, rise up to a deacon^ ?" 
And when he saith, that as Aaron and his sons and the Levites were in 
the temple, so are bishops, priests, and deacons in the church, for place 

p Vol. II. 1170.1 

P Nolite credere in ducibus, non in episcopo, non in presbytero, 
non in diacono, non in qualibet hominum dignitate. * * » • * Honoremus 
episcopum, presbytero deferamus, assurgamus diacono; et tamen non 
speremus in eis : quia hominis vana, et certa spes est in Domino. Com- 
ment. Hieronymi in Michaese, c. vii. Opera, Vol. iii. p. 1549.] 


and degree' ; and in another place, speaking of the outrages done by 
the Vandals and such hke, "Bishops were taken, priests slain, and 
diverse of other ecclesiastical orders; churches overthrown, the altars 
of Christ made stables for horses, the reUcs of martyrs digged up," &c.* 
when he saith of Nepotian, fit clericus, et per solitos gradus presbyter 
ordinatur ; " he becometh a man of the clergy, and by the accustomed 
degrees is made," what ? a "priest," or an " elder" 1 when he saith, Mihi 
ante presbyterum sedere non licet, &c., doth he mean he could not sit above 
an elder, or above a priest, himself as then being not priest ? When he 
and Vincentius, as St Epiphanius wTiteth, of reverence to the degree, Ep. 60. apud 

• 1- ij u- 9 Hiero. c. 1. 

were hardly induced to be made presbyteri, did they refuse the eldership { 

What was the matter, that John the bishop of Jerusalem seemed to be 

so much offended with Epiphanius and St Jerome ? was it not because 

Epiphanius made Paulianus, St Jerome's brother, priest withki the said Ep. i. ad 

John's diocese ? 

Fulke. Before the blasphemous heresy of the popish Fulke, 
sacrifice of the mass was estabhshed in the world, the fathers ■^^• 
did with more hberty use the terms of "sacrifice" and " sacri- 
ficing priests;" which improper speeches, since they have 
given occasion in the time of ignorance to maintain that 
blasphemous heresy, there is good reason that we should 
beware how we use any such terms, especially in translation 
of the scriptures. All the rest of the authorities you cite in 
this section, and five hundred more such as they are, speak 
of presbyter or TrpeajSurepo^, which words we embrace : but 
of the English word "priest," as it is commonly taken for a 
sacrificer, or against this word " elder," they speak nothing ; 
for in all those places we may truly translate for presbyter 
an " elder." 

Martin. When all antiquity saith, Hieronymus Presbyter, Cecilius Martin, 
Presbyter, Ruffinus Presbyter, Philippus, Juvencus, Hesychius, Beda, ^* 
presbyteri ; and when St Jerome so often in his Catalogue saith, such a 
man, presbyter; is it not for distinction of a certain order, to signify that 
they were priests, and not bishops ? namely, when he saith of St Chry- 

[^ Et ut sciamus traditiones apostolicas sumtas de veteri testamento, 
quod Aaron et filii ejus atque Levitee in templo fuerunt, hoc sibi epis- 
copi et presbyteri et diaconi vendicant in ecclesia. Hieronymi Epist. 
c. i. ad Evangelum. Opera, Vol. iv. p. 803.] 

[* Capti episcopi, interfecti presbyteri, et diversorum ofi&cia cleri- 
corum. Subversae ecclesiae, ad altaria Christi stabulati equi, martyrum 
effossae reliquiae. Hieronymi, Epitaph. Nepotiani. Opera, Vol. iv. 
p. 274.] 






sostom, Joannes presbyter Antiochenus, doth he not mean he was as then 
but a priest of Antioch 1 Would he have said so, if he had written of 
him after he was bishop of Constantinople ? 

Fulke. All this wliile here is nothing for the Enghsh 
word "priest," in that respect we avoid it in translation; nor 
against the word "elder," which we use, by which we mean 
none other thing than the scripture doth give us to under- 
stand by the word Trpeo-jSyrejOos. As for the distinction of 
episcopus and presbyter, which came in afterward, you your- 
self confessed, as we heard of late, that it is not observed in 
the scriptures ; but the same men are called episcopi, wliich 
before were called preshyteri. And according to that dis- 
tinction, you can allow but one bishop of one city at once : 
yet the scripture in divers places speaketh of many bishops 
of one city, as Acts xx,, the bishops of Ephesus, called before 
preshyteri, " elders ;" also he saluteth the bishops and deacons 
of Philippi, Phil, i,, where your note saith, that in the 
apostle's time there were not observed always distinct names 
of either function of bishop and priest. Would you have 
us to translate the scripture with distinction of names wliich 
the Holy Ghost maketh not, nor your vulgar Latin observeth, 
nor you yourself for shame can observe ? And if we should 
have translated for "elders'" "priests," that distinction taken 
up after the apostle's times, or the writing of the scripture, 
had been never the more confirmed. 


Martin. But of all other places, we would desire these gay transla- 
tors to translate this one place of St Augustine, speaking of himself a 

Quanquam enim secundum honorum 

Inter Episto- bishop, and St Jerome a priest 

las Hiero. Ep. . . 

97. in fine, vocaoula, qucs jam ecclesue usus obtinuit, episcopatus presbyterio major sit; 
tamen in multis rebus Augustinus Hieronymo minor est. Is not this 
the English thereof? "For although according to the titles or names of 
honour, which now by use of the church have prevailed, the degree of 
bishop be greater than priesthood, yet in many things Augustine is 
less than Jerome." Or doth it like them to translate it thus, "The 
degree of bishop is greater than eldership," &c. ? Again, against Julian 
the heretic, when he hath brought many testimonies of the holy doctors, 
that were all bishops, as of St Cyprian, Ambrose, BasU, Nazianzene, 
Chrysostom ; at length he cometh to St Jerome, who was no bishop, and 
saith. Nee sanctum Hieronymum, quia presbyter fuit, contemnendum. 
arbitreris ; that is, " Neither must thou thuik that St Jerome, because 
he was but a priest, therefore is to be contemned ; whose divine eloquence 
hath shined to us from the east even to the west, like a lamp ;" and so 

Lib. 1. c. 2. 
in fine. 


forth to his gi-eat commendation. Here is a plain distinction of an infe- 
rior degree to a bishop, for the which the heretic Julian did easily con- 
temn him. Is not St Cyprian full of the like places ? Is not all antiquity 
so full, that whiles I prove this, methinketh I prove nothing else but 
that snow is white ? 

Fulke. Of all other importune and unreasonable judges Fulke, 
you are one of the worst, that would enforce us to translate 
the scriptures, which you confess observeth not the distinction 
of bishops and priests, according to the fathers, which do 
almost always observe it. If we should translate those sen- 
tences of St Augustine, we might use the word " priest" for 
presbyter, and "priesthood" for preshyterium; and if we use 
the words " elders" and " eldership," what offence I pray you 
were it, when by these names we understand nothing, but 
the same function and minister wliich Augustine doth ? That 
episcopus, a " bishop," was of very old time used to signify 
a degree ecclesiastical liigher than presbyter, an " elder" or 
"priest," we did never deny; we know it right well. We know 
what St Jerome writeth upon the epistle to Titus, chap. i. 
Idem est ergo presbyter, qui episcopus^. "The same man 
is presbyter, or an ' elder,' or ' priest,' wliich is episcopus, a 
'bishop.' And before that, by the instinct of the devil, factions 
were made in rehgion, and it was said among the people, 
'I am of Paul, I of Apollo, and I of Cephas,' the churches 
were governed by common counsel presbyterorum, ' of the 
elders.' But afterward, when every one thought those whom 
he had baptized to be his own, and not Christ's, it was de- 
creed in the whole world, that one de presbyteris, ' of the 
elders,' being elected, should be set over the rest, to whom 
all the care of the church should pertain, and the seeds of 
scliisms should be taken away." Tliis, and much more to this 
effect, writeth St Hieronyme of this distinction, in that place, 
and in divers other places ; which nothing proveth that we 

[} Idem est ergo presbyter qui episcopus : et antequam diaboli in- 
stinctu studia in religione fierent, et diceretur in populis, Ego sum 
Pauli, ego Apollo, ego autem Cephse, communi presbyterorum consilio 
ecclesiae gubemabantur. Postquam vero unusquisque eos quos baptiza- 
verat suos putabat esse, non Christi, in toto orbe decretum est, ut unus 
de presbyteris electus superponeretur ceteris, ad quern omnis ecclesiae 
cura pertineret, et schismatum semina toUerentur. Comment. Hiero- 
nymi in Titum, c. i. Opera, Vol. iv. p. 413.] 


are bound to translate presbyter in the scripture a " priest,"" 
and least of all, that we are bound in terms to keep that 
distinction, which the scripture maketh not, and the papists 
themselves cannot observe in their most partial translation. 

Martin, Martin, In aE which places if they will translate "elder," and yet 

make the same a common name to all ecclesiastical degrees, as Beza 

1 Pet. V. defineth it, let the indifferent reader consider the absurd confusion, or 
rather the impossibility thereof: if not, but they will grant in all these 
places it signifieth " priest," and so is meant ; then we must beat them 

Beza's words with. Beza's rod of repi'ehension against Castaleon, that " we cannot 

in the place ° , 

above aiieg- dissemble the boldness of these men, which would God it rested within 
the custom of words only, and were not important matter concerning 
their heresy ! These men therefore, touching the word ' priest,' though 
used of sacred writers in the mystery of the New Testament, and for so 
many years after, by the secret consent of all churches, consecrated to 
this one sacrament, so that it is now grown to be the proper vulgar 

v'^hk speech almost of all nations ; yet they dare presume rashly to change 

Priest. it, and in place thereof to use the word ' elder.' DeUcate men, forsooth !" 

(yea, worse a great deal, because these do it for heresy, and not for deli- 
cacy,) "which neither are moved with the perpetual authority of so 
many ages, nor by the daily custom of the vulgar speech can be brought 
to think that lawful for divines, which all men grant to other masters 
and professors of arts ; that is, to retain and hold that as their own, 
wliich by long use, and in good faith, they have truly possessed. Nei- 
ther may they pretend the authority of any ancient writer," (as that the 

Presbyter, old Latin translator saith senior and seniores ;) "for that which was to 

for a priest. , i i i <• 

Baptismus, them as it were new, to us is old ; and even then, that the selfsame words 
ment of bapT wliich we now use were more familiar to the church, it is evident, be- 
cause it is very seldom that they speak otherwise." 

FcLKE, Fulke. I see no impossibility, but that in all places 

where we read j^feshyter, we may lawfully translate " elder," 
as well as " priest," and make it still, in scripture, a common 
name to all ecclesiastical degrees, (at least, to as many as 
the scripture maketh it common,) without any absurdity or 
confusion. And albeit in the fathers we should translate 
it " priest," because they understood by the name presbyter 
a distinct degree from episcopus ; yet the saying of Beza 
against Castaleo could not by any wise man be applied to 
us. For Castaleo changed the name of the sacrament bap- 
tismus, by wliich both the scriptures and the fathers uni- 
formly did use to signify one and the same sacrament : 
whereas the name of presbyter in the scripture signifieth 
one thing, and in the fathers another. For in the scripture 


it is taken indifferently for episcopus, and episcopus for 
presbyter : but in the fathers these are two distinct degrees. 
Therefore he is worthy to be beaten in a grammar-school, 
that cannot see manifest difference between the use of the 
word haptismus, which, being spoken of the sacrament, in 
the scriptures and fathers is always one, and of presbyter, 
which in the scriptures is every ecclesiastical governor, in the 
fathers one degree only, that is subject to the bishop. 

Martin. Thus we have repeated Beza'e words again, only changing Martin, 
the word " baptism" into " priest," because the case is all one : and so 
unwittingly Beza, the successor of Calvin in Geneva, hath given plain 
sentence against our English translators in all such cases, as they go from 
the common received and usual sense to another profane sense, and out of 
use : as, namely, in this point of " priest" and " priesthood." Where we 
must needs add a word or two, though we be too long, because their 
folly and malice is too great herein. For whereas the very name " priest" s^M- Whit- 

. .; X- g,fj g defence 

never came into our English tongue, but of the Latin presbyter, (for against the 

J. , , 1, 1 1 , \ 1 Puritans' Re- 

thereupon sacerdos also was so called only by a consequence,) they piy, p. 721, 
translate sacerdos" priest," and presbyter, not priest, but "elder," as wisely firmeth that 
and as reasonably, as if a man should translate Prcetor Londini, " Mayor pri^^ com- 
of London," and Major Londini, not " Mayor of London," but " Greater ^ord^/wW- 
of London ;" or Academia Oxoniensis, " the University of Oxford," and ofthTword' 
Universitas Oxoniensis, not "the University," but "the Generality of sacerdos. 
Oxford ;" and such like. 

Fulke. Beza's words agree to us, as well as German's Fulke, 
lips, that were nine mile asunder. For if this English word 
" priest," by custom of speech, did signify no more than the 
Greek word TrpeafivTepo^, we would no less use it in our trans- 
lations, than ** bishops'" and " deacons :" which offices though 
they be shamefully abused by the papists, yet the abuse 
of the words maketh no confusion between the ministers of 
the law and of the gospel, as this word " priest" doth, by 
which the Jewish sacrificers are rather understood, than 
preachers of the gospel and ministers of the sacraments. 
But whereas the etymology of tliis Enghsh word "priest" 
cometh from presbyter, you charge us with great folly and 
mahce, that for sacerdos we translate " priest," and for pres- 
byter " elder." To this I answer. We are not lords of the 
common speech of men ; for if we were, we would teach them 
to use their terms more properly : but seeing we cannot 
change the use of speech, we follow Aristotle's counsel, which 



is to speak and use words as the common people useth, 
but to imderstand and conceive of things according to the 
nature and true property of them. Although, for my part, 
I like well of the French translation, which for lepel^, or 
sacerdotes, always translateth sacrificateurs, " sacrificers ;" and 
for preshyteri, where they signify the ministers of the word 
and sacraments, prestres, " priests." But this diversity being 
only of words, and not of matter or meaning, reasonable men 
will take an answer ; fools and quarrellers will never acknow- 
ledge any satisfaction. 

Martin, Martin. Again, what exceeding folly is it, to think that by false 

23- and profane translation of presbyter into "elder," they might take 

away the external priesthood of the new testament, whereas their own 

word sacerdos, which, they do and must needs translate "priest," is as 

common and as usual in all antiquity as presbyter ; and so much the 

more, for that it is used indifferently to signify both bishops and priests, 

which presbyter lightly doth not but in the New Testament. As 

when Constantine the Great said to the bishops assembled in the council 

Kuffin. lib. 1. <^f Nice : Deus vos constituit sacerdotes, &c. " God hath ordained you 

''■ ^- priests, and hath given you power to judge of us also." And St Ambrose : 

Epist. 32. ad " Wlien didst thou ever hear, most clement prince, that laymen have 

num'im"p!' J lodged bishops ? Shall we bend by flattery so far, that forgetting the 

Juris sacerdo- I'ight of our priesthood, we should yield up to others that which God 

'^''^" hath commended to us?" And therefore doth St Chrysostom entitle 

his six books, De Sacerdotio, Of Priesthood, concerning the dignity and 

In Apoiog. calling not only of mere priests, but also of bishops : and St Gregory 

orat*"*^"^' Nazianzene, handling the same argument, saith, "that they execute 

X,oio-T(o priesthood together with Christ." And St Ignatius saith : " Do nothing 

eiv Epist 1 ^'ithout the bishops ; for they are priests, but thou the deacon of the 

adHieronem. priests." And in the Greek liturgies or masses, so often : o te/jeis, "Then 

Sacerdotes. . " 

iepev^. the priest saith this and that," signifying also the bishop when he saith 

diuKovo^ mass; and * St Denys saith sometime, ^?'cA?saceJ*rfo<eTO cum sacerdotibus, 

lepdpxv" "The high priest or bishop with the priests ;" whereof come the words 

a-vv jois Uparevfiv, lepovpyelv, lepdrevpa, UpaTfia, tepovpyia, in the ancient Greek 

• Ec. Hiera. fathers, for the sacred function of priesthood, and executing of the same. 

c. 3. 

Martin, Martin. If then the heretics could possibly have extinguished 

^'^' priesthood m the word presbyter, yet you see it would have remained 

still in the words sacerdos and sacerdotium, which themselves translate 
" priest" and " priesthood ;" and therefore we must desire them to trans- ' 
late us a place or two after their owti mamier. First, St Augustine 
Lib. 8. c. 27. speaking thus : Quis unquam audivit sacerdotem ad altare stantem etiam 
super reliquias martyrum dicere, Offero tibi,Petre, et Paule, vel Cypriane?^ 

[} The passage of Augustine here referred to is incorrectly quoted. 
In the Paris reprint of the Benedictme edition it stands thus : " Quis 

De Civ. Dei. 


" Who ever heard that a priest standing at the altar, even over the relics 

of the martyrs, said, I offer to thee, Peter, and Paul, or Cyprian" ? So, 

we trow, they must translate it. Again, Nos uni Deo et martyr urn et Lib.22. civ. 

nostra sacrificium immolamus, ad quod sacrifidum sicut homines Dei 

suo loco et ordine nominantur, non tamen a sacerdote invocantur. Deo 

quippe, non ipsis sacrifieat, quamvis in memoria sacrificet eorum, quia Dei 

sacerdos est, non illoriim. Ipsutn vero sacrificium corpus est Christi^. 

We think they wUl and must translate it thus : " We offer sacrifice to 

the only God both of martyrs and ours, at the which sacrifice, as men 

of God they (martyrs) are named in their place and order ; yet are they 

not invocated of the priest that sacrificeth. For he sacrificeth to God, So as he said 

and not to them, though he sacrifice in the memory of them, because to thee, Peter^ 

he is God's priest, and not theirs. And the sacrifice itself is the body of '^'^' 


Fulke. Nay, " what exceeding folly is it to think" that Fulke, 
an external sacrificing office can be established in the New ' 
Testament (which never calleth the ministers thereof sacer- 
dotes, or l€pe1<i), because men of later time have improperly 
transferred those terms mito the " elders" or " priests" of 
the New Testament ! Certainly among so many names as 
the scriptm:'e giveth them, if sacrificing for the quick and the 
dead had been the principal part of their function, as by you 
papists hath been accomited, is it credible, that the Holy 
Ghost would never have called them \epe1s, as well, yea, 
and rather than the " sacrificers" of the old testament ? 
Seeing therefore the Holy Ghost had made such a broad 
difference between their names and offices, those ancient 
fathers that confounded those names, wliich the Spirit of God 
would have to be distinct, cannot be excused ; although they 

autem audivit aliquaudo fidelium stantem sacerdotem ad altare etiam 
super sanctum corpus martyris ad Dei honorem cultumque constructum, 
dicere in precibus, Offero tibi sacrificium, Petre, vel Paule, vel Cypriane 1 
Augustmi Opera, Vol. vii. p. 349. Edit. Paris. 1838.] 

[^ This quotation also, as here given, differs from the Benedictine 
edition, where it stands thus : " Sed uni Deo et martyrum et nostro ; 
ad quod sacrificium, sicut homines Dei, qui mundum in ejus confes- 
sione vicerunt, suo loco et ordine nominantur, non tamen a sacerdote, 
qui sacrifieat, invocantur. Deo quippe, non ipsis sacrifieat, quam- 
vis in memoria sacrificet eorum; quia Dei sacerdos est, non illorum. 
Ipsum vero sacrificium corpus est Christi, quod non offertur ipsis, quia 
hoc sunt et ipsi." p. 1073. At 'nostro' there is a various reading with 
this remark : " Hie editi addunt, sacrificium immolamus : quod abest a 
manuscriptis." V. Lectiones Variant es, p. 1288, upon the passage.] 


never dreamed of the mischief that followed, that the altar of 
the cross being overthrown, and the only and sufficient sacri- 
fice, which Christ our "high sacrificer" offered once for all, 
being judged imperfect, a new " altar," a new " sacrifice," and 
a new " sacrificing priesthood" should be set up in the stead 
of it. Wherefore the improper speeches of the ancient writers 
are no warrant for us, either to translate the scripture ac- 
cording to . their improper speaking, or to set up a new 
sacrifice and function of sacrificing contrary to their mean- 
ing. They named " sacrifice" and " offering," but they meant 
not propitiatory sacrifice, but only of pi^ayers, or praises 
and giving of thanks. They named lepel^ and sacerdotes, 
but they meant, according to the general etymology of those 
words, such as were occupied in distributing holy things ; not 
such as should verUy sacrifice the body of Christ again to- 
his Father, but offer the sacrifice of thanksgiving in the 
sacrament of the Lord's supper, which after a certain manner, 
Epist. 23. Bo- as St Augustine saith, is called the body of Christ, when indeed 

nifac. Decon- ..." /iiii ^ t % t i» /^^ • at 

seer, distinct, it IS the sacramcut of the body and blood oi Christ. And 

2. cap. hoc ... " 

^idlm^iffii^ it 13 called the " sacrificing" of the body of Christ, not in 
*^^- truth of the thing, but a signifying mystery, as Gracian 

citeth out of Jerome. 

Martin, Martin. Likewise when St Amtrose saith, " The consecration (of 

25 • . . 

Lib d s ^^^ body of Christ) with what words is it, and by whose speech 1 Of 

c. 4. our Lord Jesus. For in the rest that is said, there is praise given to 

God, prayer made for the people, for kings, and others; but when it 

Sacerdos. cometh that the venerable sacrament must be consecrated, now the priest 
useth not his own words, but he useth the words of Christ '^.^ And St 

[} Si enim sacramenta quamdam similitudinem earum rerum, quarum 
sacramenta sunt, non haberent, omnino sacramenta non essent. Ex 
hac autem similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina acci- 
piunt. Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis 
Christi corpus Christi est, sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi 
est; ita sacramentum fidei fides est. Nihil est autem aliud credere, 
quam fidem habere. Augustini Epist. ad Bonifacium. Epist. xoviii. 
c. ix. ordo novus. Opera, Vol. ii. p. 400.] 

[^ Consecratio autem quibus verbis est, et cujus sermonibus 1 Domini 
Jesu. Nam reliqua omnia quae dicuntur in superioribus, a sacerdote 
dicuntur, laudes Deo deferuntur, oratio petitur pro populo, pro regibus, 
pro ceteris; ubi venitur ut conficiatur venerabile sacramentum, jam 
non suis sermonibus utitur sacerdos, sed utitur sennonibus Christi. 
Ambrosii de Sacramentis, Lib. iv. c. iv. Opera, Vol. ii. p. 368.] 


Chrysostom in very many places saith: " The sacred oblation itself, Hom. 2. in 
whether Peter, or Paul, or any meaner priest whatsoever offer it, is Saeerdos. 
the very same that Christ gave unto his disciples, and which now the ^''^^ °^' 
priests do make or consecrate. Why so, I pray thee ? because not men 
do sanctify this, but Christ himself, which before consecrated the same^," 
And again : " It is not man that maketh the body and blood of Christ, 
but he that was crucified for us, Christ ; the words are uttered by the sacerdotis. 
priest's mouth, and by God's power and grace are the things proposed 
consecrated. For this, saith he, 'is my body V With this word are the 
things proposed consecrated." 

Fulke. These testimonies are heaped up without any need, Fulke, 
for the improper usage of these words 'lepem, or saeerdos, ' 
in the ancient writers we do acknowledge : but in the holy- 
scripture you are not able to bring one place where preshy- 
teri of the New Testament are called sacerdotes, or teoets. 
Wherefore of the improper applying of these names to the 
ministers of the New Testament, can follow no consequence 
of external " sacrifice," or " altar," which you m^ge, except 
" sacrifice" and " altar" be likewise used improperly, as where 
the table is called " an altar," the bread and wine " a sacri- 
fice," as in IrenaBus^ lib. iv. cap. xxxii. where also he saith, 
that the " sacrifices" do not sanctify the man, but the con- 
science of the man being pure sanctifieth the " sacrifice," 
and causeth God to accept it as of a friend, cap. xxxiv. : 

|_' 'H irpoacpopa ^ av-r^ ea-ri, mv 6 tvxoI>v TrpoaeveyKj], kuv HavXos, 
Kav Herpos, 17 airij iariv, tjv 6 Xpiaros rots p.adT)Ta1s edcoKf, Kal fju 
injv oi lepels ttoiovctlv ovhev avrq iXdrrcov (Kfivrjs, on /cat Tavrrjv ovk 
avdpanroi ayia^ov(Tiv, dXX' avros 6 Ka\ eKeivrjv ayiaaas. Chrysost. in 
2 Epist. ad Timoth. c. i. Hom. ii. Opera, Vol. xi. p. 671. Edit. Mont- 
faucon. Par. 1734.] 

P Ov8e yap avdpanros fariv 6 iroiatv ra TvpoKeipuva yeveadai a-wpia 
Kai alpa Xptarov' aXK avros 6 aravpcoSfls virep fjpSiv XpiaTos. (rx^pa 
TrXrjpcov e(TTr]K(v 6 Upeiis, ra p-qpara (f)deyy6p€vos eKelva' j; 8e hvvapis 
Ka\ fj x"P'f ■'■0*^ Qiov ea-Ti. rovro pov earl to (Tu>pa, (f)r](n. Chrysost. 
de Proditione Judae, Hom. i. Opera, Vol. 11. p. 384.] 

[^ Quoniam autem non indigens Deus servitute eorum, sed propter 
ipsos quasdam observantias in lege praeceperit, plenissime prophetae 
indicant. Et rursus quoniam non indiget Deus oblatione eorum, sed 
propter ipsum qui offerat hominem, manifeste Dominus docuit, quem- 
admodum ostendimus. Irenaei, Lib. iv. Contra Haeres. c. xvii. Opera, 
p. 247. 

Igitur ecclesise oblatio, quam Dominus docuit offerri in universo 
mundo, purum sacrificium reputatum est apud Deum, et acceptum est 


which cannot in anywise be true of the natural body of 

Martin, Martin. And so by these places, where themselves translate sace)-dos 

Presbyteri. a " priest," they may learn also how to translate presbyteros in St Jerome, 
saying the very same thing, " that at their prayers the body and blood 
of our Lord is made ;" and in another place, " that with their sacred 
month they make our Lord's body." Likewise when they read St 
Ambrose ' against the Novatians, that God hath granted licence to his 
Sacerdotibus. priests to release and forgive as well great sins as little, without excep- 
tion ; and in the Ecclesiastical History^, how the Novatian heretics taught 
that such as were fallen into great sins, should not ask for remission of 
Sacerdote. the priest, but of God only : they may learn how to translate presbyteros 
in St Jerome^, and in the Ecclesiastical History, where the one saith thus : 
Sozom. lib. 7- Episcopus et presbyter, cum peccatorum audierit varietates, scit qui ligandus 
Soerat. lib. 5. sit, qui solvendus ; and the other speaketh, de presbytero pcenitentiario, 
of an extraordinary priest, that heard confessions and enjoined penance, 
who afterward was taken away, and the people went to divers ghostly 
fathers, as before. And especially St Chrysostom* wiU make them 

ei: non quod indigeat a nobis sacrificium, sed quoniam is qui offert, 
glorificatur ipse in eo quod offert, si acceptetur munus ejus. Irenaei, 
Lib. IV. Contra Hsereses. c. xviii. p. 250. Edit. Paris, 1710.] 

p Similiter impossibile videbatur per poenitentiam peccata dimitti ; 
concessit hoc Cliristus apostolis suis, quod ab apostolis ad sacerdotum 
oflficia transmissum est. Ambrosii de Poenitent. Lib. ii. c. ii. Opera, 
Vol. II. p. 419.] 

P Sed aiunt se, exceptis gravioribus criminibus, relaxare veniam 
levioribus. Non hoc quidem auctor vestri erroris Novitianus, qui ne- 
mini poenitentiam dandam putavit ; ea scilicet contemplatione, ut quod 
ipse non posset solvere, non ligaret, ne ligando sperari a se faceret 
solutionem. In eo igitur patrem vestrum propria damnatis sententia, 
qui distinctionem peccatorum facitis, quae solvenda a vobis putetis, et 
qua sine remedio esse arbitremini: sed Dens distinctionem non facit, 
qui misericordiam suam promisit omnibus, et relaxandi licentiam sacer- 
dotibus suis sine uUa exceptione concessit. Ambrosii de Poenitent. Lib. i. 
c. iii. Opera, Vol. ii. p. 393.] 

[^ Dupliciter vero sanguis Christi et caro intelligitur : vel spirituaUs 
ilia atque divina, de qua ipse dixit, Caro mea vere est cibus, et sanguis 
mens vere potus; et. Nisi manducaveritis carnem meum, et sanguinem 
meuni biberitis, non habebitis vitam ceternam: vel caro et sanguis, quae 
crucifixa est, et qui miiitis effusus est lancea. Comment. Hieronymi 
in Epist. ad Ephes. c. i. Opera, Vol. iv. p. 328.] 

P Ei^oi' i^ovaiav ot Tcjv 'lov8ai(ov kpels' koX oiada ttcos TrfpifiaxrjTov 
nv TO Twv lepeav rare ; ovroi be ov \iivpav crdfiaTos, aW anadapcriav 
•<lfv)(rjs, ovK an-aXXayeio-av SoKt/io^eif, aXX* airoKKaTTeiv iravTekuii eXa^ov 
f^ovaiav. wore ol tovtcop vnepopavres ttoXXw km tS)V irepl Aa6av eUv 


understand what these preshyteri were, and how they are to be called in 

English, who telleth them in their own word, that sacerdotes, " the Lib. .•j. de Sa- 

priests of the new law, have power, not only to know, but to purge the 

filth of the soul ; therefore whosoever despiseth them, is more worthy 

to be punished than the rebel Dathan and his compUces." 

FulJce. Where St Jerome iiseth the word preshyteri, we Fulke, 
will make no great curtesy to translate "priests ;" knowing ^*^- 
that when he saith, at then' prayers "the body and blood 
of Christ is made," he meaneth the sacrament of the body and 
blood of Christ, as he himself saith in another place : Du- 
jpliciter sanguis Christi et caro intelligitur ; " The blood and 
flesh of Cln^ist is understood two manner of ways," either that 
spiritual and divine, whereof he himself said, ' My flesh is 
meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed ; and except ye 
shall eat my flesh and di'ink my blood, you shall not have 
eternal life ;"" or else the flesh and blood which was cruci- 
fied, and wliich was shed by the spear of the soldier." This 
and such other places teach us to understand St Jerome, 
if he speak any where obscurely or improperly of the mystery 
of our Lord's supper. We grant with Ambrose, that God 
hath given authority to all the ministers of the word to 
remit all sins that be remissible. But this do not you grant; 
for you reserve some to the bishops, and some to the pope 
alone to remit: wherein you go clean against Ambrose, who 
favoureth you not so much by the term sacerdos, which you 
say he useth, as he condemneth your partial and popish 
reservation of cases, when he alloweth every priest to for- 
give as well great sins as httle, without exception. St 
Jerome you cite at large, as it seemeth, to insinuate auricular 
confession : but the whole saying you liked not, because it 
sheweth how they forgive sins. It is written in Matt. Lib. iii. 
cap. 16. upon those words spoken to Peter, " Unto thee will 
I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven," &c. Isfum 
locum episcopi et preshyteri non intelligentes^ , &c. "This place 

evayea-repoi, Koi fi(i(ovos a^ioi Tificoplas. Chrysost. de Sacerdotio, Lib. iii. 
Opera, Vol. i. p. 284.] 

[* Istum locum episcopi et preshyteri non intelligentes, aliquid sibi 
de Pharisaeorum assumunt supercUio : ut vel damnent innocentes, vel 
solvere se noxios arbitrentur; quum apud Deum non sententia sacer- 
dotuni, sed reoruin vita quaeratur, Legimus in Levitico de leprosis, 
ubi jubentur, ut ostendant se sacerdotibus ; et si lepram habuerint, tunc 




bishops and priests not understanding, take upon them some- 
what of the pride of the Pharisees : so that they tliink they 
may either condemn the innocents, or loose the guilty persons : 
whereas with God, not the sentence of the priests, hut the life 
of the persons accused is inquired of. We read in Levi- 
ticus of the lepers, where they are commanded to shew 
themselves to the priests; and if they have the leprosy, then 
by the priest they are made unclean : not that priests make 
lepers and unclean persons, but that they may have know- 
ledge of him that is a leper, and him that is no leper ; and 
may discern who is clean or who is unclean. Therefore even 
as the priest doth there make the leper clean or unclean ; so 
here also the bishop and priest doth bind or loose, not them 
that be innocent or guilty, but according to his office, when 
he shall hear the variety of sinners, he knoweth who is 
to be bound, and who is to be loosed." But where you 
say, the people went to diverse ghostly fathers, as before, 
when that extraordinary penitentiary priest was taken away 
for the adultery of a deacon at Constantinople'; you speak 
beside the book, to make the ignorant believe that the people 
went to auricular shrift. For in Constantinople, where this 
privy confession was taken away, the people were left to their 
own consciences. At Rome, the same time, great offenders 
did open penance, neither were there any such diverse ghostly 
fathers, as you speak of. That Chrysostom saith. Lib. iii. de 
sacerdotio, we receive it, being so understood, as it be not 
contrary to that I cited even now out of Jerome. But what 
maketh all this against translating presbyter " an elder" ? 

Martin, Martin. Now then, to conclude this point, seeing we have such a 

Hei) xii cloud of witnesses, as the apostle speaketh, even from Christ's time, 

that testify not only for the name, but for the very principal functions 

a sacerdote immundi fiant : non quo sacerdotes leprosos faciant et immun- 
dos; sed quo habeant notitiam leprosi et non leprosi, et possint dis- 
cernere qui mundus, quive immundus sit. Quomodo ergo ibi leprosum 
sacerdos mundum vel immundum facit ; sic et hie alligat vel solvit 
episcopus et presbyter, non eos qui insontes sunt vel noxii ; sed pro 
officio suo, quum peccatorum audierit varietates, scit qui ligandus sit, 
quive solvendus. Comment. Hieronymi in Matth. c. xvi. Opera, 
Vol. IV. p. 75.] 

\2 See Socrates, Eccl. Hist. lib. v. cap. xix. Sozomen. vii. xvi.] 


of external priesthood, in offering the sacrifice of Christ's body and 
blood, in remitting sins, and so forth ; what a peevish, malicious, and 
impudent corruption is this, for the defacing of the testimonies of the 
holy scriptures tending thereunto, to seek to scratch advantage of the 
word presbyter, and to make it signify an "elder," not a "priest;" 
presbyterium, " eldership," rather than " priesthood :" as if other new- 
fangled companions, that would forge an heresy that there were no apos- 
tles, should for that purpose translate it always "legates;" or that there 
were no angels, and should translate it always " messengers ;" and that 
baptism were but a Judaical ceremony, and should translate it " wash- 
ing ;" which Castaleo did much more tolerably in his translation than 
any of these should, if he did it only of curiosity and folly. And if to 
take away all distinction of "clergy" and "laity," the protestants should 
always translate clerum " lot" or " lottery," as they do translate it for ciems. 
the same purpose " parish" and " heritage ;" might not Beza himself « j^ j pet. v. 
control them, saying, " that the ancient fathers transferred the name ad^NeiSr de 
clerus to the college of ecclesiastical ministers'' 1 'i'- ^'^"'^" 

° rum, Ep. 2. 

c. 5. 

FulJce. A cloud of testimonies indeed you have heaped Fulkk, 
together, not, as the apostle did, to uphold the certainty of 
faith, but to obscure the hght of truth. For our translation 
of irpeafii/Tepos " an elder" is true, clear and plain, without 
ambiguity : insomuch as the vulgar Latin interpreter, who 
(as it seemeth) was a Grecian, and therefore useth gladly many 
Greek terms, doth yet translate this word almost twice as 
often senior, or major natu, as he doth presbyter, when he 
speaketh of the ministers of the gospel. How the ancient 
writers apphed unto them improperly the name of "sacrificer," 
as unto the sacrament the name of " oblation" or " sacrifice," I 
have spoken already sufficiently. Our translation therefore is 
notliing like your vain supposal of new-fangled companions, 
which to deny "apostles," "angels," and "baptism," would turn 
the words into " legates," " messengers," and " washing." 
Whereas we have no purpose to deny any office or function of 
the church appointed by Christ, but to distinguish in name, as 
his Spirit in the scriptures doth always, the sacrificers of the 
Old Testament from the ministers of the New Testament. 
The word clerus, 1 Pet. v. which we translate "parish" or 
"heritage," yourselves m your notes of that place confess to 
comprehend in signification "all Christians," which you are not 
able to prove, that in St Peter's time it was transferred 
unto the "college of ecclesiastical ministers," as Beza saith it 
was afterward : wherefore it is one of your accustomed slan- 
ders, to say we translate it so of purpose to take away 



all distinction of clergy and laity; when all men know, that 
wheresoever our churches are estabhshed, we retain the 
distinction, and so think it necessary always. 

Martin, Martin. But, alas ! the effect of this corruption and heresy concem- 

^^' ing priests, hath it not wrought within these few years such contempt 

of all priests, that nothing is more odious in our country than that 
name ; which before was so honourable and venerable, and now is among 
all good men? If "ministry" or "eldership" were grown to estimation 
instead thereof, somewhat they had to say: but that is yet more contemp- 
tible, and especially "elders" and "eldership;"" for the queen's majesty 
and her councillors will permit none in government of any church in 
England ; and so they have brought all to nothing else but profane laity. 
And no marvel of these horrible inconveniences: for as the sacrifice 
and priesthood go together, and therefore were both honourable together ; 
so when they had, according to Daniel's prophecy, abolished the daily 
sacrifice out of the church, what remained, but the contempt of priests 
and clergy, and their offices ? so far forth, that for the holy sacrifice' sake 
priests are called in great despite " massing priests," of them that little 
consider, or less care, what notable holy learned fathers of all ages since 
Chap. vi. Christ's time this their rejiroach toucheth and concerneth, as by the testi- 
monies before alleged is manifest, and whereof the reader may see a 
pecuUar chapter in the late Apology of the English Seminaries. 

FuLKE, FulJce. A marvellous corruption, for us to call them 

a el(Jers,"" whom you in your translation call "ancients," and 
the vulgar Latin before us both called seniores! But what is 
come to pass, I pray you, by tliis wonderful corruption ? 
The name of " popish priests" is so contemptible, that nothing 
is more odious in England. And good cause, why ; both 
for their blasphemy agamst God, and traitorous practices 
against the honom^able state of the realm, and our most gra- 
cious queen. But " elders" and " eldersliip" (you ween) is 
more contemptible, because " the queen's majesty and her 
councillors will permit none in government of any churches 
in England, and so they have brought all to notliing else, but 
'profane laity.' " This traitorous slander of yours is as true 
as all the rest : for although the queen's majesty and the 
council do not permit such consistories of elders for only 
disciphne and government, as be in some other churches; 
yet do they not only permit, but also maintain and reve- 
rence such elders, bemg signified by the Greek word 
7rpea(3uT€poi, as are necessary for the government of the 
church in doctrine, sacraments, and discipline, to the salva- 


tion of God's people. The daily sacrifice mentioned in 
Daniel was the morning and evening sacrifice of the old 
law, whereunto yom* blasphemous sacrifice of the mass 
hath no resemblance. You may not therefore look to 
recover the credit of massing priests by that sacrifice, 
which, being once instituted by God, was at length taken 
away by the only sacrifice of Christ's death ; agamst wliich 
all the apologies in the world shall never be able to defend 
your massing priesthood. As for the chapter of Allen's 
Apology, whereunto you refer us, [it] containeth certain quo- 
tations, and a few sentences of the ancient writers, wliich 
have been answered an hundred times, to justify massing 
priests ; but all in vain : for never shall he prove that any 
one, from the eldest which he named unto Beda, which 
is the youngest, was such a massing priest in all points, 
as those traitors are, which by the queen's laws and 
edict arc proscribed and prohibited : I mean not, for their 
maimers, but for their mass and all opinions incident 




Heretical Translation against Purgatory, Limbus Patrum, 
Christ's descending into Hell. 

Martin, 1 

Calvin's In- 
lib. 2. c. 16. 
sect. 10. and 
in his Cate- 

FULKE, 1. 

Martin. Having now discovered their corrapt translations for de- 
facing of the church's name, and abolishing of priest and priesthood ; 
let us come to another point of very great importance also, and which, 
by the wonted consequence or sequel of error, includeth in it many 
erroneous branches. Their principal malice then being bent against 
purgatory, that is, against a place where christian souls be purged by 
suffering of temporal pains after this life, for surer maintenance of their 
erroneous denial hereof they take away and deny all third places, 
saying that there was never from the beginning of the world any other 
place for souls after this life, but only two ; to wit, heaven for the 
blessed, and hell for the damned. And so it followeth by their heretical 
doctrine, that the patriarchs, prophets, and other good holy men of the 
Old Testament, went not after their deaths to the place called " Abra- 
ham's bosom," or limbus patrum, but immediately to heaven : and so 
again by their erroneous doctrine it followeth, that the fathers of the 
Old Testament were in heaven before our Saviour Christ had suffered 
death for their redemption ; and also by their erroneous doctrine it fol- 
loweth, that our Saviour Christ was not the first man that ascended and 
entered into heaven ; and moreover by their heretical doctrine it foUow- 
eth, that our Saviour Christ descended not into any such third place, 
to deliver the fathers of the Old Testament out of their prison, and to 
bring them triumphantly with him into heaven, because by their erro- 
neous doctrine they were never there ; and so that article of the apostles' 
creed concerning our saviour Christ's descending into heU, must either 
be put out by the Calvinists, as Beza did in liis confession of his faith, 
printed anno 15()4 ; or it hath some other meaning, to wit, either the 
lying of his body in the grave, or (as Calvin and the purer Cal- 
vinists, his scholars, will have it) the suffering of hell pains and distresses 
upon the cross. Lo the consequence and coherence of these errors and 
heresies ! 

Fulke. We may be bold to say with St Augustine, 
We believe, according to the authority of God, that the 
kingdom of heaven is the first place appointed for God's 
elect, and that hell is the second place, where all the 
reprobate, and such as be not of the faith of Christ, shall 
suffer eternal punishment. Tertium penitus ignoramus, 
imo nee esse in scripturis Sanctis invenimus : "The third 


place we are utterly ignorant of, yea, and that it is not 
we find in the holy scriptures." But hereof it foUoweth 
say you, that the godly of the Old Testament went not 
after their deaths to Abrahani"'s bosom, or limbus patrum, 
but immediately to heaven. Of limbus patrum, which is 
a border of the " pope's hell," I grant it followeth ; but 
of Abraham's bosom it followeth none otherwise than if I 
should say, "Gregorie Martin went into Cheapside,'"" ergo, 
"he went not to London." That the fathers of the Old 
Testament were in heaven before our Saviour Christ had 
suffered death for their redemption, it is no inconvenience ; 
for his death was as effectual to redeem them that lived 
before he suffered actually, as them that live since ; be- 
cause in God's sight he is " the Lamb that was slain from 
the beginning of the world." And the fathers that were 
justified by faith in his blood, received the same crown 
and reward of righteousness that we do, being justified by 
the same means. And yet our Saviour Christ was the 
first man, that in his whole manhood ascended and entered 
into heaven, into the fulness and perfection of glory, which 
is prepared for all God's elect, to be enjoyed after the 
general resurrection. That our Saviour Christ descended 
into no prison after his death, we verily beUeve ; and yet 
we do also constantly beheve the article of our creed, 
that "he descended into hell," by suffering in soul the pains 
due to God's justice for the sins of all whom he redeemed, 
and by vanquishing the devil, and aU the power of hell, 
in working the redemption of all the children of God. If 
Beza in liis confession had clean left out that article, (which 
is untrue,) he had been no more to be blamed than the 
authors of the Nicene creed, and many other creeds, in 
which it is not expressed, because it is partly contained 
imder the article of his sufferings, partly it is in part of 
the effect and virtue of his death and redemption. 

Martin. These now being the heretical doctrines which they mean Martin, 2. 
to avouch and defend, whatsoever come of it ; first, they are at a point 
not to care a rush for all the ancient holy doctors, that write with full 
consent to the contrary, as themselves confess, calling it their common Beza in i Pet. 
error; secondly, they translate the holy scriptures in favour thereof vin's institut. 
most corruptly and Avilfully, as in Beza's false translation, who is Calvin's sect. y. 
successor in Geneva, it is notorious ; for he, in his New Testament of 


the year 1556, printed by Robertus Stephanas in folio, with annotations, 

maketh our Saviour Christ say thus to his Father, Non derelinques 

cadaver meum in sepulchro ; " Thou shalt not leave my carcase in the 

Hiero. in Pa. grave," Acts ii. for that which the Hebrew, and the Greek, and the 

braeo. Latin, and St Jerome, according to the Hebrew, say, Non derelinques 

tir£)3 animam meam in inferno, as plainly as we say in English, " Thou shalt 

SS>*W"T. "^* \G?i^e my soul in hell." Thus the proj^het David spake it in the 

: • Hebrew, Psal. xv. ; thus the Septuagint uttered it in Greek ; thus the 

apostle St Peter allegeth it ; thus the holy evangelist St Luke, in the 

xf/uX'i" e'^ Acts of the Apostles, chap, ii., recordeth it ; and for this, St Augustine 

"°°'"'* calleth him an infidel that denieth it : yet all this would not suffice to 

• See his An- make Beza translate it so, because of certain errors, (*as he heretically 

not. in 2. Act. temieth them,) which he would full gladly avoid hereby, namely, the 

catholic true doctrine of limbus patrum and " purgatory." What need 

we say more ? He translateth animam, " a carcase ;" so calling our 

Saviour Christ's body, irreverently and wickedly, he translateth infe)-- 

num "grave.'' 

FuLKE, 2. Fulke. That many of the christian fathers held this 
error, that the godly of the Old Testament were not in 
heaven before Clu-ist's death, it is no cause why we should 
be afraid to confess the truth revealed to us out of the 
holy scriptm-es, to the glory of God. And if the wrong 

Vii^Ii^ or ambiguous translation of one Hebrew word, sheol, de- 
ceived them that were for the most part ignorant of the 
Hebrew tonffue : what reason were it that we should not 
in translation reform that error ? But as for Beza's first 
translation of the Greek word ^v^n " dead body," and 
adr}^ " grave," I have answered at large, cap. i. sect. 31. ; 
where also it is shewed, how vainly you take hold of the 
English word " carcase," to charge Beza with unreverent 
calling of our Saviour Christ's body, when it was dead, 
because he calleth it in Latin cadaver. 

Martin 3. Martin. Need we take any great labour to prove this to be a foul 
corruption, or that it is done purposely, when he confesseth that he thus 
translateth, because else it would serve the papists ? Which is as much 
to say, as, the word of God, if it be ti-uly and sincerely translated, maketh 
indeed for them. For the first part, we will not stand upon it, partly 
because it is of itself most absurd, and they are ashamed of it ; partly 
because it shall suffice to confute Beza, that two other as famous heretics 
as he, Castaleo and Flaccus lUyricus, write against him in this point, 
and confute him ; partly also, because we speak not here universally 
of all heretical translations, but of the English corruptions specially ; 
and therefore we may only note here, how gladly they also woiild say 


somewhat else for " soul," even in the text, if they durst for shame : 
for in the margin of that English translation they say, " or life," " or Bib. an. 1579. 
person ;" hereby advertising the reader, that he may read thus if it 
please him, " Thou shalt not leave my life in the grave," or, " Thou 
shalt not leave my person." As though either man's soul or life were 
in the grave, or anima might be translated " person," which the self- 
same English bible doth not ; no, not in ,those places where it is evident Acts vii. 14. 
that it signifieth " the whole person," For though this word " soul,'' by 
a figure, is sometime taken for "the whole man," yet even there they do 
not, nor must not translate it otherwise than "soul;" because our 
tongue beareth that figure as well as Latin, Greek, or Hebrew; but 
here, where it cannot signify " the whole person," it is wicked to translate 
it so. 

Fulke. If you take more labour than you are well Fulke, 3. 
able to bear, yet shall you prove it no heretical corrup- 
tion. As Castaleo and Illyricus, the one an heretic, the 
other a scliismatic, have inveighed against Beza, so hath 
he sufficiently confuted them. But to our English trans- 
lation, where in the margin they say "life," or "person," 
when in the text they say " soul ;" what doth this offend 
you ? They render the usual Enghsh word for the Greek 
word, but they admonish the reader that the word " soul" 
in tliis place signifieth not the soul separated from the 
body, but either "the life," or "the whole person;" because 
that, although the body only be laid in the grave, yet 
according to vulgar speech and sense the whole man is 
said to be bm-ied, and liis life seemeth to be inclosed in 
the grave, according to which popular and humane con- 
ceit the prophet in that psalm speaketh ; as appeareth 
in the latter part of that verse, which is all one in sense 
with the former, "neither wilt thou give thy holy one to 
see corruption," where corruption, which is proper only to 
the body, is there spoken generally of the whole man. 
If tliis exposition please you not, yet you have no cause 
to find fiiult with the translation, which in that place is 
according to the common and ordinary signification of 
the Greek word ^v-^rj, "soul;" which, as it is some-^cuii 
time taken for the whole person, as you note, Act. vii. 14, 
so is it here, as the latter part of the verse doth most 
plainly declare'. 

\^ "Ort ovK fyKaraXei-^eis Trjv ^vxt)v fiov ds abov, Acts ii. 27. " Quo- 
niam non derelinques animam meam in inferno," Vulg.] 


Martin, 4. Martin. But as for the word "grave," that they put boldly in the 

text, to signify that, howsoever you interpret " soul," or whatsoever you 

put for it, it is not meant according to St Augustine and the faith of the 

whole catholic church, that his soul descended into hell, whiles his body 

was in the grave ; but that his soul also was in the grave, howsoever 

that is to be understood. So making it a certain and resolute conclusion, 

that the holy scripture in this place speaketh not of Christ's being in 

hell, but m the grave ; and that according to his soul, or life, or person. 

See Vigors' or, as Beza will have it, " his carcase or body ;" and so " his soul in 

no"i°5!'and hell," as the holy scripture speaketh, shall be " his body in the grave," 

eincepb. ^^ Beza plainly speaketh, and the Bezites covertly insinuate ; and white 

shall be black, and chalk shall be cheese, and every thing shall be any 

thing that they will have it. And aU this their evident false translation 

must be to our miserably deceived poor souls the holy scripture and 

God's word. 

FuLKE, 4. Fulke. The Greek word a5>j9 well beareth to be trans- 
lated in some places " a grave," and here the latter part of 
the verse speaketh of corruption, which cannot be under- 
stood to be but "in the grave ;" and so doth St Peter under- 
stand it, saying, " that David the patriarch died, and was 
buried, and his sepulchre remaineth with us unto this day:" 
and St Paul upon the same verse of the psalm saith, " he 
saw corruption." Both the apostles therefore interpreting 
this verse of the resurrection of Christ, we think it indeed a 
"resolute conclusion,"" that the scripture in tliis place speaketh 
not of Christ's being in hell, which we acknowledge in the 
article of our creed, but of his burial and resurrection. Your 
trifling of "wliite and black," "chalk and cheese," may seem 
pleasant rhetoric to gross ears, whom you seek to fill with such 
vanities : but the wiser sort, that are acquainted with figura- 
tive speeches, will think it nothing strange, if words be not 
always taken in their usual and proper signification. That 
{^22 the Hebrew word nephesh, which the prophet in that verse 
of the psalm useth, is taken divers times in the scripture 
for " a dead body," I have before proved more plainly than 
ever you shall be able to deny : where you may, if you 
be disposed to sport yourself, use your figurative compari- 
son of "white and black," "chalk and cheese ;" but you shall 
sooner of white make black, of chalk cheese, than you can 
possibly avoid the clear light of those texts, which was seen 
even of your own vulgar Latin interpreters. 


Martin. Where we cannot but marvel, why they are afraid to trans- Martin, 5. 
late the words plainly in this place, "of his soul being in hell ;" whereas 
in the creed they admit the words, and interpret them, that by suffering 
hell pains upon the cross, so " he descended into hell," and no otherwise. 
Why did they not here also keep the words for the credit of their trans- 
lation ; and afterward, if they would needs, give them that gloss for 
maintenance of their heresy ? This mystery we know not, and would 
gladly learn it of the puritan Calvinists, whose English translation 
perhaps this is. For the grosser Calvinists, being not so pure and precise 
in following Calvin as the puritans be, that have well deserved that 
name above their fellows, they in their other English bibles have in Bib. an. i562. 
this place discharged themselves of false translation, saying plainly, ^""^ '^^^' 
"Thou shalt not leave my soul in helF." But in what sense they say *seeLmd. 
so, it is very hard to guess ; and perhaps themselves cannot tell yet "^"''^'- p- ^^• 
what to make of it, as appeareth by M. Wliitaker's answer to F. Cam- whitaker, 
pion. And he is now called a bishop among them, and proceeded doctor Si.Htes2,bp. 
in Oxford, that could not obtain his grace to proceed doctor in Cam- ?^ ?,*; ■f^*'^^' 

1/-, "^ Wales. 

bndge, because he preached Christ's descending into hell ; and the 
puritans in their second admonition to the parliament, p. 43, cry out 
against the politic Calvinists, for that in the creed of the apostles, (made 
in English metre, and sung openly in their churches, in these words'', 
" His spirit did after tliis descend, into the lower parts, to them that 
long [in darkness were, the true light of their hearts,") they favour his 
descendmg into hell very much, and so consequently may thereby build 
limbuspatrum and "purgatory." And the puritans in their second reply 
against M, Whitgift's defence, p. 7, reprehend one of their cliiefest 
Calvinistical martyrs for assuming, as they term it, a gross descending 
of our Saviour Christ into hell. Thus, the puritans confess plainly their 
heretical doctrine, against Christ's descending into hell. 

[} " Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell." Acts ii. 27. Edits. 1562, 
1568. 1584. "Thou wilt not leave my soul in grave," 1560, 1579.] 

P William Hughes received liis first education in Oxford, but sub- 
sequently went to Christ College, Cambridge, where he took his degrees 
in arts, and holy orders ; and being soon after made chaplain to Thomas 
Howard, duke of Norfolk, he attended him to Oxford in 1568, where he 
was incorporated bachelor of divinity, as he stood at Cambridge. The 
year after, says Wood, the said duke writing letters to Dr Laur. Hum- 
phrey in his behalf, he was, by his endeavours made to the Vice-Chan- 
cellor and convocation, permitted to proceed in his faculty. He was 
promoted to the episcopal see of St Asaph in 1573. Wood's Athenae 
Vol. II. 844.] 

P The lines in Sternhold and Hopkins, upon the twelve Articles of 
the Christian Faith, are these : 

" His soul did after this descend 
Into the lower parts, ' 

A dread unto the wicked sprites. 
But joy to faithful hearts."] 


FuLKE, 5. Fulke. By confessing in our creed that Christ "descended 
into hell," you might know, (but that you had rather be igno- 
rant, that you might marvel still,) that we purposed not in 
translating this place to deny that article, as you falsely 
slander us ; but because this place might seem unto the 
ignorant to confirm the error of Christ's descending into 
limhus patrum, as it doth not, if it be rightly under- 
stood, it was thought good of some translators, that (seeing 
this verse must have the same sense in the Greek sermon 
of Peter, that it hath in the Hebrew psalm of David, and 
the Greek word q^m, used by the evangelist instead of 
^iXtp the Hebrew word sheol, may bear to signify a "grave," as the 
Hebrew word doth most usually,) by translating it the "grave," 
to shew that this verse in Greek maketh no more for that 
error of descending into limhus, than the same doth in 
Hebrew. As for yom^ distinction of gross Calvinists and 
puritans, it may be packed up among the rest of your quar- 
rels and slanders. What Master Whitaker hath written in his 
answer to friar Campion, he is able to explain unto you himself, 
if you do not imderstand him. That the bishop of Saint 
Asaph did once favour your error in some part, and for that 
was misliked of the University of Cambridge, it is as true, as 
that afterward, refornung his judgment at Oxford, where he 
proceeded, he was also incorporated doctor at Cambridge. 
The Enghsh metre upon the creed, except it be drawn to an 
allegory, in my judgment cannot be defended ; which judg- 
ment I declared openly at Paul's cross, fourteen or fifteen 
years ago. Master Latimer's error of Clirist suiFering tor- 
ments in hell, after his death, is justly reprehended, by whom- 
soever it be.^ By all which I know not what may be rightly 
gathered, but that we flatter not one another in errors; but 

[^ In Latimer's sermon on the Passion of Christ, we find him thus 
speaking, and affixmg a different sense to the words, "He descended 
into hell,"from that which they have been generally considered to bear : 
"He descended into hell. I see no inconvenience to say, that Christ 
suffered in soul in hell. I singularly commend the exceeding great 
charity of Christ, who for our sakes would suffer in hell in his soul. 
It sets out the unspeakable hatred that God hath to sin. I perceive 
not that it derogates from the dignity of Christ's death ; as in the garden 
when he suffered, it derogates nothing from that which he suffered 
on the cross."] 


if any among us be deceived, of what account or credit soever 
he be, we spare not to reprove liis error, preferring God's 
truth before all worldly and private respects of friendsliip, 
countenance, credit, and whatsoever. 

Martin. The truth is, howsoever the politic Calvinists speak orMARxiK.e. 
write in this pomt, more plausibly and covertly to the people, and more 
agreeably to the article of our faith, than either Calvin, or their earnest 
brethren, the puritans, do, which write and speak as fantastically and 
madly as they tliink; yet neither do they believe this article of the 
apostles' creed, or interpret it as the catholic church and ancient holy 
fathers always have done, neither can it stand with their new profession 
so to do, or with then- English translations in other places. It cannot 
stand with their profession ; for then it would follow that the patriarchs, 
and other just men of the Old Testament, were in some third place of 
rest, caUed " Abraham's bosom," or limhus patrum, tiU our Saviour Christ 
descended thither, and delivered them from thence; which they deny 
in their doctrine, though they sing it in their metres. Neither can it 
stand with their English translations; because in other places, where 
the holy scriptures evidently speak of such a place, calling it " hell," 
(because that was a common name for every place and state of souls 
departed in the Old Testament, till our Savioui* Christ, by his resur- 
rection and ascension, had opened heaven,) there, for " hell," they trans- 
late "grave." 

Fulke. The truth is, howsoever you slander us with Fulke, fi. 
odious names of schism, and diverse Interpretations, we all 
agree in the faith of that article, and in the true sense and 
meaning thereof. As also we consent against your errors of 
limhus patrum, or any descending of Christ into that fan- 
tastical place. As for "Abraham's bosom," we account it no 
place of descent, or going down, but of ascending; even the 
same that our Saviour Christ upon the cross called " para- 
dise," Lukexxiii. saying to the penitent thief, "This day thou 
shalt be with me in paradise;" which of St Paul is called "the 
third heaven," 2 Cor. xii., saying that he was " taken up into 
the third heaven, whether in the body, or out of the body, 
he knew not, but he was taken up into paradise, and there 
heard words that could not be uttered, wliich it is not law- 
ful for a man to speak." And that "Abraham's bosom" is a 
place far distant from hell, that only text where it is named, 
Luke xvi., doth evidently declare. First, the angels carry 
the soul of Lazarus into Abraham's bosom : he mio-ht as well 


have said hell, if he had meant hell. But angels use not to 
go down into hell. Secondly, it is a place of comfort; for 
Lazarus was there comforted. Thirdly, there is a great chaos, 
which signifieth an infinite distance, between Abraham and the 
rich glutton; which utterly overthroweth that di^eam of lim- 
hus, which, signifying a border or edge, supposeth that place 
to be hard adjoining to the place of torments. Last of all, if 
the article of our faith had been of limbus patrum, or of 
"Abraham's bosom," we should have been taught to say, he 
descended into limbo patrum, or he descended into Abraham's 
bosom, which all christian ears abhor to hear. The word 
bSi^W sheol, used in the Old Testament for a common receptacle 
of all the dead, signifieth properly a place to receive their 
bodies, and not their souls; and therefore most commonly 
in our translations is called " the grave." 

Martin,?. Martin. As when Jacob saith, Descendam ad filium meum lugens in 
Gen. xxxvii. infemum ; " I will go down to my son into hell, mourning :" they 
translate, " I wiU go down into the grave unto my son, mourning® :'' as 
though Jacob thought that his son Joseph had been buried in a grave; 
whereas Jacob thought, and said immediately before, as appeareth in 
the holy scripture, that a wild beast had devoured him, and so could 
not be presumed to be in any grave : or as though, if Joseph had been 
in a grave, Jacob would have gone down to him into the same grave. 
For so the words must needs import, if they take " grave" properly ; 
but if they take " grave" unproperly, for the state of dead men after 
7^)^^ this life, why do they call it "grave," and not *'hell," as the word is 
a5))s. in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin ? No doubt they do it to make the igno- 

rant reader believe, that the patriarch Jacob spake of his body only, to 
descend into the grave to Joseph's body ; for as concerning Jacob's soul, 
that was, by their opinion, to ascend immediately after his death to 
heaven, and not to descend into the grave. But if Jacob were to ascend 
forthwith in soul, how could he say, as they translate, " I will go down 
into the grave unto my son" 1 As if according to their opinion he 
should say, " My son's body is devoured of a beast, and his soul is gone 
up into heaven ; well, I will go down to him into the grave." 

FuLKE, 7. Fiilke. A proper quiddity you have found out of Jacob, 
supposing liis son to be devoured of wild beasts : yet saith, " I 
will go down unto liim mourning;" which you think cannot be 

P " I will go doMTi into the grave unto my son mourning," Cran- 
mer's Bible, edition, 1562. Bishop's Bible, 1684. Geneva, 1560. 'Ort 
KaTo^tjaofiai, npos tov vlov fiov TTfvOatv (Is abov. Gen. xxxvii. 36.") 


into the grave, because he did not think he was buried. But 
you must remember, it is the common manner of speech, 
when men say in mourning, they will go to their friends 
departed, they mean they will die, although their friends 
perhaps were drowned in the sea, or then' bodies burned, or 
perhaps lie in desolate places unburied. So Jacob's descend- 
ing into the grave signifieth no more but death, by wliich he 
knew he should be joined to his son in soul, though he were 
not in body. The name of grave is used, because it is usual, 
that dead men are buried, though it be not miiversal. And 
that the grave is taken commonly for death, it appeareth by 
that phrase so often used in the scriptures, "he slept with his 
fathers, and was buried;" wliich being spoken mdifferently of 
good men and evil, cannot be understood of one place of their 
souls, but of death, wliich is common to all, and is proper to 
the body, not unto the soul ; for the souls of the departed 
sleep not. The like is to be said of the phrase used in Genesis 
of Ismael, as well as of the godly patriarchs, "he was laid up 
to his people." And lest you should please yourself too much in 
your cliildish conceit of Joseph's being devom^ed, (whereof yet 
his father was not certain,) you sliaU hear how Isidorus Clarius 
translateth the same place in his bible, censured by the depu- 
ties of Trent council, Descendam ad jilium meum lugens in 
sepidchrum : "I will go down to my son, mourning into my 
grave." This is one of the places which he thought meet to be 
corrected, according to the Hebrew ; and in other places, where 
he is content to use the old word, infernus, he signifieth in 
his notes, that he meaneth thereby sepulcrum, " the grave." 
And indeed this word infernus signifieth generally any place 
beneath; as the Greek word a.^r\<i, which the Greek translators 
used for sheol, the Hebrew word, signifieth a place that is 
dark and obscure, where nothmg can be seen, such as the 
grave or pit is, in which the dead are laid, wliich therefore 
of Job is called, "The land of darkness, and the shadow of Job x. 

Martin. Gentle reader, that thou mayest the better conceive these Martin, ; 
absurdities, and the more detest their guileful corruptions, understand, 
as we began to tell thee before, that in the Old Testament, because there 
was yet no ascending into heaven, " the way of the holies" (as the apostle Heb. ix. 8. 
in his epistle to the Hebrews speaketh) " being not yet made open," Heb. x. 20. 
because our Saviour Christ was to dedicate and begin the entrance in 


his own person, and by his passion to open heaven ; therefore, we say, 
in the Old Testament the common phrase of the holy scripture is, even 
of the best men, as well as of others, "that dying they went down" 
ad inferos, or ad hifernum: to signify, that such was the state of the 
Old Testament before our Saviour Christ's resurrection and ascension, 
that every man went down, and not up ; descended, and not ascended : 
by descending, I mean not to the grave, which i-eceived their bodies 
only, but ad inferos, that is, "to hell," a common receptacle or place 
for their souls also departed, as well of those souls that were to be 
in rest, as those that were to be in pains and torments. All the souls 
both good and bad, that then died, went downward; and therefore the 
place of both sorts was called in all the tongues by a word answer- 
able to this word "hell," to signify a lower place beneath, not only 
of torments, but also of rest. 

FuLKE, 8. Fulke. Where you reason that there was no ascending 
mto heaven, "because the way of the hohes was not yet made 
open, when the first tabernacle was standing," you abuse the 
reader and the scripture. For the apostle's meaning is, in 
that verse, to shew that to the great benefit of Christians that 
first tabernacle is fallen, because that now we have more 

Heb. iv. 16. familiar access unto God by Jesus Christ. For whereas 
the high priest only but once in the year, and then not with- 
out blood, entered into the second most holy tabernacle, be- 
cause the way of the hohes, that is, unto the holiest, or sancta 
sanctorum, was not then opened ; now our Saviour Christ 
having once entered into the holiest place by his own blood, 
and foimd eternal redemption, we have by liim, without any 
ceremonies, sacrifices, or mediation of any mortal priest, free 

Heb. X. m. access unto the throne of grace, even into the holy place, by 
the new and living way, Avhich he hath prepared for us. But 
all tliis is to be understood of the clear revelation of the 
mercy of God m Christ, wliich was obscurely set forth mito 
the fathers of the Old Testament ; and not of the eifect and 
fruit of his passion, which was the same for their salvation, 
that it is for ours. Neither have the souls of the faitliful, 
since the coming of Christ, any other place of rest, than the 

Heb. xi. 40. fathers had before his incarnation; God providing most wisely, 
that they without all the rest of their brethren, that shall be 
unto the world's end, shall not be made perfect. And whereas 
you say, that all the souls of good and bad then went down- 
ward, you are controlled by the wise man, Eccles. iii., where 
he speaketh in the person of the carnal man, doubting of 


that which is not comprehended by reason, but beheved by 
faith : " Who knoweth whether the spirit of man ascend up- 
ward?" — and more plainly in the last chapter of that book, 
where he exhorteth to repentance, shewing in the end, "that 
though dust return to the earth from whence it was, yet the 
spirit returneth to God that gave it." It returneth to God: 
therefore it goeth not down. For who would abide to hear 
tliis speech, The souls of the faithful went downward to God : 
yea, went into hell to God '? nay, returned downward into 
hell to God that gave them ? That common receptacle there- 
fore of the dead was the receptacle of their boches, wliich all, 
first or last, returned to the earth from whence they were 
taken. And where you say, that place was called in aU 
tongues by such a word as signifieth a lower place beneath, it 
is true of the common receptacle of their bodies, but not of 
then* soids. For the soul of Lazarus was not carried by the 
angels into hell, but into Abraham's bosom ; which was not 
only a place of rest, but also of joy and comfort, contrary to 
torments ; between wliich and hell was an infinite distance. 
Who would call that a common receptacle, when there was an 
infinite distance unpassable from one to the other ? 

Martin. So we say in our creed, that our Saviour Christ himself Martin, 9. 

descended into "hell," according to his soul: so St Hierome, speaking Epitaph. Ne- 

of the state of the old testament, saith : Si Abraham, Isaac, Jacob ^°^' '^ ' 

in inferno, quis in ccelorum regno ? that is, " If Abraham, Isaac, and 

Jacob were in hell, who was in the kingdom of heaven V And again : 

Ante Christum Abraham apitd inferos : post Christum latro in Paradiso : 

that is, " Before the coming of Christ, Abraham was in hell ; after his 

coming, the thief was in paradise." And lest a man might object, that Lukexvi. 

Lazarus, being in Abraham's bosom, saw the rich glutton afar off in 

hell, and therefore both Abraham and Lazarus seem to have been in 

heaven : the said holy doctor resolveth it, that Abraliam and Lazarus See s. Au- 
gust, in Psal. 
Ixxxv. 13.1 

[} Aliam etiam opinionem dicam. Fortassis enim apud ipsos inferos 
est aliqua pars inferior, quo truduntur impii qui plurimum peccaverunt. 
Etenim apud inferos utrum in locis quibusdam non fuisset Abraham, 
non satis possumus definire. Nondum enim Dominus venerat ad infer- 
num, ut emeret inde omnium sanctomm prsecedentium animas ; et 
tamen Abraham in requie ibi erat. Et quidem dives cum torqueretur 
apud inferos, cum videret Abraham, levavit oculos. Non eum posset 
levatis oculis videre, nisi ille esset superius, ille inferius. Et quid 
ei respondit Abraham, cumdiceret. Pater Abraham, mitteLasarum,&;c. ? 
(Luke xvi. 22 — 26.) Ergo inter ista duo fortasse inferna, quorum in 



also were in hell, but in a place of great rest and refreshing, and 
therefore very far off from the miserable wretched glutton that lay in 

FuLKE, 9. Fulke. We say in our creed, that Christ " descended into 
hell ;" which being an article of our faith, must have relation to 
such benefit as we receive by his descending, namely, that 
thereby we are dehvered from the pains of hell. But that 
he should descend into limbus patrum, to fetch out the 
fathers, (wliich before you said were in prison, now you say 
in rest,) we neither say it in our creed, neither doth it 
pertain unto us. But Jerome is cited as a favourer of 
your opinion, who, I confess, in some part held as you do, 
but not altogether. For thus he wr'iteth. in JEpitaph. Nepot^. 
After he hath given thanks to Clu'ist for our redemption by 
his death : Quid autem miserius homine, qui ceternce mortis 
terrore p>rostratus vivendi sensum ad hoc tantuni accepierat 
utperiret, &c. "Wliat was more miserable than man before, 
which being cast down with terror of eternal death, received 
sense of hving for this end only, that he might perish. For 
' death reigned from Adam unto Moses, yea, upon those which 
have not sinned after the similitude of the transgression of 
Adam.' If Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in hell, who in the 
Idngdom of heaven ? If thy friends were under the pun- 

uno quieverunt animse justorum, in altero torquentur animae impiorum, 
attendens quidam orans hie, jam in corpore Christi positus, et orans 
in voce Christi, eruisse Deum animam suam ab inferno inferiore dixit, 
quia liberavit se a talibus peccatis per quae posset deduci a^ tormenta 
infemi inferioris. Augustin. Enarrat. in Psalmum Ixxxv. c 18. Opera, 
Vol. IV. pp. 1303, 1304] 

17 Quis autem miserior homine ; qui tetemae mortis terrore prostratus, 
vivendi sensum ad hoc tantum acceperat, ut periret? Regnavit enim 
mors ab Adam usque ad Moysen, etiam super eos qui non peccaverunt 
in similitudinem prcevaricationis Adce. Si Abraham, Isaac et Jacob in 
inferno, quis in ccelorum regno? Si amici tui sub poena ofFendentis 
Adam, et qui non peccaverant, alienis peccatis tenebantur obnoxii; 
quid de his credendum est, qui dixerunt in cordibus suis, non eM Deus ? 
qui corrupti et abominabiles facti sunt in voluntatibus suis? qui de- 
clinaverunt, simul inutiles facti sunt ; non est qui faciat bonum, non est 
usque ad unum? Quod si Lazarus videtur in sinu Abrahse, locoque 
refrigerii ; quid simile infernus et regna coelorum ? Ante Christum 
Abraham apud inferos: post Christum latro in paradise. Et idcirco 
in resurrcctione ejus multa dormientium corpora surrexerunt, et visa 
sunt in coelesti Jerusalem. Hieron. Epit. Ncpot. Opera, Vol. iv. p. 267.] 


ishment of Adam^, and they which sinned not were held 
guilty by other men's sins ; what is to be thought of them 
which said in their heart, 'there is no God,' &c.? And if 
Lazarus be seen in the bosom of Abraham and in a place of 
rest, what like hath hell and the kingdom of heaven ? Before 
Christ, Abraham in hell; after Christ, the thief in paradise." 
In these words Jerome after liis rhetorical manner, amplify- 
ing the benefit of our redemption by Christ, doth rather touch 
this error, than plainly express it. For first, he maketh 
all men miserable before Christ, and cast down with terror 
of eternal death ; which is true, if ye consider them with- 
out Christ, in wliich state are all men since Christ : but of 
all men that Hved before the time of Christ's death, and 
yet embraced their redemption by him, it is not true. As 
also, that there are some which have not sinned. But that all 
this is to be understood, specially of the death of their bodies, 
and allegorically of their souls, he addeth immediately, Et 
idcirco in resurrectione ejus multa dormientuim corpora, &c. 
"And therefore at Ms resurrection many bodies of them that 
slept arose, and were seen in the heavenly Jerusalem." See 
you not, how he turneth all into an allegory, to set forth the 
virtue of Christ's redemption ? who brought all his elect by 
his death from hell, and the power of darkness, into the king- 
dom of heaven. Furthermore, you bid us see Augustine in 
Ps. Ixxxv. 13. Where in the beginning he professeth his 
ignorance in discussing the question of the nethermost hell. 
First, supposing this world in which we live to be infernum 
superius, and the place whither the dead go infernum in- 
ferius, from which God hath delivered us, sending thither his 
Son, who to tliis infernum or "lower" place came by his birth, Nascendo. 

1 , , . , , . . . Moriendo. 

to that by his death ; he addeth another opmion, Fortassis 
enim apwd ipsos inferos est aliqua pars inferior, &c. " Per- 
adventure even in hell itself there is some part lower, in 
which the ungodly which have much sinned are delivered. 
For whether Abraham had been now in certain places in 
hell, we cannot sufficiently define." And afterward when he 
hath spoken of the diverse places of Lazarus and the rich 
glutton, he concludeth as uncertainly as he began : Ergo inter 
istafortasse duo inferna, quorum in uno, &c. " Therefore per- 
adventure between these two hells, in one of which the souls of 

P Old edition, mirier thp puvixlimcni. Tf Adam and — ] 

19 — 2 


the righteous rested, [in the other] the souls of the wicked are 
tormented, one attending prayeth in the person of Christ," &c. 
Here you may see, what an article of beUef this was with 
St Augustine, when he hath nothing to define, but only 
bringeth his conjectural opinions and peradventures : also 
how he taketh infernmn for any lower place, insomuch 
that he calleth tliis world infernum. Wherefore much more 
may infernmn signify the " grave," and be so sometimes 

Martin, Martin. His words be these in effect : " If a man will say unto 

me, that Lazarus was seen in Abraham's bosom, and a place of refresh- 
ing " even before Christ's coming ; true it is, but what is that in com- 
parison ? Quid simile in/emus et regna ccelorum ? " Wliat hath hell 
and heaven like ?" As if he should say, " Abraham indeed, and La- 
zarus, and consequently many other, were in place of rest, but yet 
in hell, till Christ came, and in such rest as hath no comparison with the 
Ex'^d ^'(f^ '^^^^ ^^ heaven." And St Augustine^ disputing this matter sometime, 
Gen. ad lit. and doubting whether Abraham's bosom be called "hell" in the scrip- 

lib. 12. c. 33. 

ture, and whether the name of hell be taken at any time in the good 
part, (for of Christ's descending into hell, and of a third place where 
the patriarchs remained until Christ's coming, not heaven, but called 

\} Quanquam et illud me nondum invenisse confiteor, inferos appella- 
tos, ubi justorum animse requiescunt. Et Christi quidem animam venisse 
usque ad ea loca in quibus peccatores cruciantur, ut eos solveret a tor- 
mentis, quos esse solvendos occulta nobis sua justitia judicabat, non 
immerito creditur. Quomodo enim aliter accipiendura sit quod dictum 
est, Quern Deus suscitavit ex mortuis, solutis doloribus inferorum, quia 
non poterat teneri ah eis, non video, nisi ut quorumdam dolores apud 
inferos eum solvisse accipiamus, ea potestate qua Dominus est, cui omne 
genu flectitur, coelestium, teiTestrium, et infernorum ; per quam potes- 
tatem etiam illis doloribus, quos solvit, non potuit attineri. Neque 
enim Abraham, vel ille pauper in sinu ejus, hoc est in secreto quietis 
ejus, in doloribus erat, inter quorum requiem et ilia inferni tomienta 
legimus magnum chaos firmatum ; sed nee apud inferos esse dicti sunt. 
Contigit enim, inquit, mori inopem ilium, et anferri ab angelis in sinum 
Abrahce : mortuus est autem et dives, et sepultus est ; et cum apud inferos 
in tormentis esset, et cetera. Videmus itaque inferorum mentionem 
non esse factam in requie pauperis, sed in suppliciis divitis. Proinde, 
ut dixi, nondum inveni, et adhuc quaero, nee mihi occurrit inferos alicubi 
in bono posuisse scripturam duntaxat canonicam: non autem in bono 
accipiendum sinum Abrahae, et illam requiem quo ab angelis pius 
pauper ablatus est, nescio utrum quisquam possit audire ; et ideo quo- 
modo eam apud inferos credamus esse, non video. Augustini de Genesi 
ad litteram. Lib. xii. c. 63, 64. Opera, Vol. viii. pp. 509, 510. Vol. in. 
p. 702. Edit. Froben. 1556.'] 


Abraham's bosom, he doubted not, but was most assured;) the same 

holy doctor in another place, as being better resolved, doubted not upon 

these Avords of the psalm, " Thou hast delivered my soul from the in vs. ixxxv. 

lower hell", to make this one good sense of this place, that the lower ^^" 

hell is it wherein the damned are tormented, the higher hell is that 

wherein the souls of the just rested; calling both places by the name 

of "help." 

Fulke. I have set down his very words indeed, which Fulke, 
being well weighed, make nothing so clearly for your fancied ^^' 
limhus, as you would have men ween. You say Augustine 
doubteth, whether Abraham's bosom in the scripture be called 
"hell," Ep. 99, et de Gen. ad lit. Lib. xii. cap. 33. But 
there he doth utterly deny it, and in Ps. lxxxv. as by his 
words cited before appeareth, he doubteth. So that where 
he flatly denieth, with you he doubteth ; and where he 
doubteth, with you he is better resolved. Wherefore this 
matter, of Abraham -and the faithful being in hell, is no article 
of faith ^; except you will say that St Augustine was not re- 
solved in the articles of our faith, who touching the tliird 
place, whatsoever at divers times he speaketh doubtingly in 
his JJi/jyognosticon, ho affirmeth resolutely, that he findeth 
in the scriptures, that there is none. 

Martin. And surely, of his marvellous humility and wisdom, he Martin, 
would have been much more resolute herein, if he had heard the opinion ^^' 
of St Jerome, whom he often consulted in such questions, and of other 
fathers, who in this pouat speak most plainly, that Abraham's bosom, 
or the place where the patriarchs rested, was some part of hell. Ter- 
tullian. Lib. iv. advers. Marcion. saith, " I know that the bosom of Loco citato. 
Abraham was no heavenly place, but only the higher hell, or the 
higher part of hell." Of which speech of the fathers rose afterward 
that other name, limhus patrum, that is the vei-y brim or uppermost 
and outmost pai-t of hell, where the fathers of the old testament rested. 
Thus we see that the patriarchs themselves were as then in hell, though 
they were there in a place of rest ; insomuch that St Jerome saith again*, 

[^^ Quid his ergo praestiterit qui dolores solvit inferni, in q^iibus 
illi non fuerunt, nondum intelligo; praesertim quia ne ipsos quidem 
inferos uspiam scripturarum in bono appellatos potui reperire. Quod 
si nusquam in divinis auctoritatibus legitur, non utique sinus ille 
Abrahffi, id est secretse cujusdam quietis habitatio, aliqua pars inferorum 
esse credenda. Augustini Epistola clxiv. c. 7. Opera, Vol. ii. p. 860.] 

[^ This subject is fully discussed by Bishop Pearson on the 5th 
Article of the Apostles' Creed.] 

f* Adde quod ante I'esurrectionem Christi notus tantum in Judaea 




Ante resurrectionem Christi notus in Judcea Deus, et ipsi qui Jioverarit 
eum, tamen ad inferos trahebantur : that is, " Before the resurrection 
of Christ God was known in Jury, and they themselves that knew 
chris'tus'sit ^^) y^t Were drawn unto hell." St Chrysostom in that place of Esay, 
Deus, torn. 5. "J ^nU break the brasen gates, and bruise the iron bars in pieces, 
and will open the treasures darkened, &c. " So he calleth hell," saith 
he; "for although it were hell, yet it held the holy souls, and pre- 
cious vessels, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob '." Mark that he saith, "though 
it were heU," yet there were the just men at that time, tiU our Saviour 
Christ came to deliver them from thence. 



Fulke. As wise and humble as he was, he was not 
ready to yield to every opinion of Jerome, as his epistles 
written to Jerome do declare. Neither was Jerome so re- 
solute in this matter, whereof he speaketh under a cloud 
and in an allegory; as it is plain, where he saith the bodies 
that were raised at the resurrection of Christ were seen 
in the heavenly Jerusalem, whereas it is certain they were 
seen only in the earthly Jerusalem actually. But he meaneth, 
the effect of Christ's redemption was acknowledged either 
in the cathohc church, which is Jerusalem above in one 
sense; or else that they shall be seen in the new Jerusalem 

erat Deus ; in Israel magnum nomen ejus. Et ipsi qui noverant eum, 
tamen ad inferos trahebantur. Hieronymi Epitaphium Nepot. Opera, 
Vol. IV. p. 267. 

Utrum autem sinus ille Abrahse, ubi dives impius, cum in tor- 
mentis esset inferni, requiescentem pauperem vidit, vel paradisi cen- 
sendus vocabulo, vel ad inferos iJertinere existimandus sit, non facile 
dixerim. De illo quippe divite legimus dictum esse, Mortuus est autem 
et dives, et sepidtus est in inferno; et, cum apud inferos in tormentis 
esset. In pauperis autem morte vel requie non sunt inferi nominati : sed, 
Contigit, inquit, mori inopem ilium, et auferri ab angelis in sinum Abrahce. 
Deinde ardenti diviti dicit Abraham, hiter nos et vos chaos magnum fir- 
matum est; tanquam inter inferos sedesque beatorum. Non enim facUe 
alicubi scripturarum inferorum nomen positum invenitur in bono. 
Augustini Epist. clxxxvii. c. 8. Opera, Vol. ii. pp. 1019, 1020.] 

P Nvv Se eTepcos 6 'Heraiay, rrvXas x^^'^^^ <xvv&ka.<ja>, Ka\ fiox^ovs 
aiBrjpoiis (TvvTpiyjra), koi ai/oi'^co ctol drjaavpovs (TKOTeivovs, dnoKpiKpavs, 
aoparovs avadei^co aoi, rbv adrjv ovtco KaXa>v Ei yap Koi adrjs rjv, dhXa 
y^v^o-s eKparei dyias Koi (TKevr] rt'/ita, rov ^A^padp., rov 'laaaK, rbv 'laKci/S, 
bio KoX drfcravpovs eKaXeo'e' crKOTfivovs 6e, fnelirep oiiBeTru) 6 Trjs diKcuo- 
avvrjs T]Xios riv KaraXapyfras avroBi, ov8e tovs ntpl dvacrTaaeais Krjpv^us 
\6yovs. Chrysost. contra Judteos et Gentiles quod Christus sit Deus. 
Opera, Vol. i. p. 564 ; Vol. vi. p. 626, edit. SavilL] 


and blessed felicity of the godly at the world's end ; whereof 
a testimony was given in that sight of their appearing and 
particular resurrection known at Jerusalem on earth. 

But you cite another place out of Tertullian, Lib. iv. ad- 
versus Marcionem, and in the margin you say, hco citato ; but 
I wot not where. And these be Tertulhan's words, if you 
be an honest man : "I know that the bosom of Abraham 
was no heavenly place, but only the higher hell, or the 
higher part of hell." I see you wUl be as bold Avith the 
ancient doctors' works, as you are with my poor writings, 
whom you make to say even what you hst. In the last 
section before you said, St Augustine, Epistol. 99, et de Gen. 
ad lit. Lib. xii. cap. 33. doubted whether Abraham's bosom 
were called "hell." Quod si nusqiiam, &c. "If it be never 
read in the holy scriptures {scilicet that hell is taken in 
the good part) verily that bosom of Abraham, that is the 
habitation of a certain secret rest, is not to be behoved to 
be any part of hell." And again, by reason of the in- 
finite chaos, Satis ut opinor appareat, " It may appear, as 
I think, sufficiently, that the bosom of that so great feli- 
city is not a certain part, and as it were a member of 
hell.""* In the other place he speaketh to the same effect, 
and upon the same ground, that he never findeth in the 
scriptures "heU" taken in good part; and cap. 34, where he 
proveth that paradise is heaven, he saith : Quanto magis ergo, 
"How much more then may that bosom of Abraham after 
this life be called paradise ?" This saith Augustine, and much 
more to this purpose ; wherein I thought to have forborne 
you, but that you come upon us still with new forgeries. 

TertuUian in the book by you quoted, p. 274 of Frob. 
printed 1550, thus writeth : Sed Marcion aliorsum cogit, 
&c.^ " But Marcion driveth it another way, so forsooth, that 

[^ Sed Marcion aliorsum cogit: scilicet utramque mercedem Creatoris, 
sive tormenti sive refrigerii, apud inferos detenninat eis positam qui 
legi et prophetis obedierint; Christi vero et Dei sui coelestem definit 
sinum et portum. Respondebimus, et hac ipsa scriptura revincente 
oculos ejus, quae ab inferis discernit Abrahae sinum pauperis. Aliud 
enim inferi, ut puto, aliud quoque sinus. Nam et magnum ait inter- 
cedere regiones istas i:)rofundum, et trausitum utrinque proliibere. Sed 
nee allevasset dives oculos, et quidem de longinquo, nisi in superiora, 
et de altitudinis longinquo, per immensam illam distantiam sublimitatis 


he determineth both the rewards of the Creator, either of 
torment or of refreshing, to be laid up for them in hell, 
which have obeyed the law and the prophets. But of Christ, 
and his God, he defineth an heavenly bosom and heaven. 
We will answer, and even by this self-same scripture, con- 
vincing his blindness, which agamst hell discerneth tliis Abra- 
ham's bosom to the poor man. For one thmg is hell, (as 
I thmk,) and Abraham's bosom another thing. For a great 
depth, he saith, is between those regions, and that doth let 
the passage to and fro. But neither should the rich man 
have lifted up his eyes, and that tnily from afar oif, but into 
higher places, and that of an exceeding height, by that in- 
finite distance of height and depth. Whereof it appeareth 
to every wise man, that hath ever heard of the Elysian fields, 
that there is some local determination, which is called Abra- 
ham's bosom, to receive the souls of his sons, even of the 
gentiles; he being the father of many nations, to be accounted 
of Abraham's family, and of the same faith, by wliich Abra- 
ham behoved God under no yoke of the law, nor in the 
sign of circumcision. That region therefore I call the bosom 
of Abraham, and if not heavenly, yet higher than hell, which 
shall give rest in the mean season to the souls of the just, 
until the consummation of things do finish the resurrection of 
all with the fulness of reward." This is as much as I can 
find in Tertulhan touching Abraham's bosom, which is clean 
contrary to that you affirm him to speak. For by this say- 
ing it is manifest, that your opinion is Marcion's heresy. 
Secondly, that Abraham's bosom is not hell, but higher by 
an infinite distance, although not in full perfection of heavenly 
glory. Thirdly, that it is not limbus patrum, but the re- 
ceptacle of all the just souls to the end of the world. Ter- 

et profunditatis. Unde apparet sapienti cuique, qui aliquando elysios 
audierit, esse aliquara localem determinationem, quae sinus dicta sit 
Abrahae, ad recipiendas animas filiorum ejus, etiam ex nationibus; patris 
scilicet multarum nationum in Abrahs censum deputandarum et ex eadem 
fide, qua et Abraham Deo credidit, nullo sub jugo legis, nee in signo 
circumcisionis. Earn itaque regionem, sinum dico Abrahae, etsi non 
coelestem, sublimiorem tamen inferis, interim refrigerium praebituram 
animabus justorum, donee coiisummatio rerum resurrectionem omnium 
plenitudine mercedis expungat. Tertull. Adv. Marcion, Lib. iv. Edit. 
Rigult. p. 559.] 


tullian's authority therefore doth you small pleasure, and less 
honesty, unless you did cite liim more truly. But I am 
unwise to look for plain dealing and smcerity at your hands. 

Well, your limbus patrum, the very brim, or uppermost, 
or outmost part of hell, wherein all the patriarchs should rest, 
we have now found from whence it came, even from yom' 
old acquaintance, the mouse of Pontus, Marcion the abomi- 
nable heretic. The other saying of Jerome, but that the 
opinion of the fathers in hell had by that time taken some 
strength, might be understood of the mortahty whereunto 
they were subject, and never should have been raised, but by 
the resurrection of Christ; as it seemeth by that which he 
opposeth of all nations, since the passion and resurrection of 
Christ, acknowledged to speak like pliilosophers of the im- 
mortality of the soul, and rejoicing in the resm*rection of the 
dead, as the fathers mourned at their death. Chrysostom's 
place is more apparent for your error, although he also 
may be understood to speak allegorically of the effect of 
Christ's death and resurrection, by which all the patriai'chs 
were delivered from death, and heU was spoiled ; not that 
they were in prison there, but that the justice of God had 
condemned them thither, if Christ's death had not redeemed 
them : but I wiU not stand to clear Chrysostom of tliis error, 
which it is sufficient for me to have found that Marcion the 
old heretic was the first author thereof, by Tertulhan's con- 
fession ; howsoever it came to pass, that many good men after- 
ward, deceived by the words ct^»/<,' and infernus, did hold it. 

Martin. Therefore did Jacob say, " I will go down to my son unto Martin, 
hell." And again he saith : " If any misfortune happen to (Benjamin) q"^ yiXyiu. 
by the way, you shall bruig my grey head with sorrow unto hell," 
which is repeated again twice in the chap. xliv. ; by which phrase the holy 
scripture will signify, not only death, but also the descending at that 
time of all sorts of souls into hell, both good and bad. And there- i Kings u '. 

F' Kat oil iiT] a6<aoia-r)s avrov, otl av^p (ro0oj el crii, kol yvaxrr) 
a 7roL7]aeLs avra, Koi Kara^eis ttjp noXiav avrov iv aluari els dSov. 
1 Kings ii. 9. "Tu noli pati eum esse innoxium. Vir autem sapiens es, 
ut scias quije facies ei, deducesque canos ejus cum sanguine ab inferos," 
Vulg. "Deal with him therefore according to thy wisdom, and bring not 
his hoar head down to the grave in peace," Edit. 1562. " But thou shalt 
not count him as unguilty : for thou art a man of wisdom, and knowest 
what thou oughtest to do unto him, his hoar head thou shalt bring 


fore it is spoken of all sorts in the holy scripture, both of good and 

of bad. For all went then into hell ; but some into a place there of 

rest, others into other places there of torments. And therefore St Jerome 

In cap. 13. saith, speaking of hell, according to the old testament : " Hell is a place 

Psai. ixxxv. wherein souls are included ; either in rest, or iu pains, according to the 


quality of theu* deserts^." 

FuLKE, Fulke. Jacob said he would be joined to his son bj 

^"' death, as in the other text you bring it is more manifest than 

the sun at noon days. For Jacob, speaking of his grey head, 
must needs mean of his body, and therefore of the grave, 
and not of hell. So in the 3 Eeg. 2, which you quote, 
David chargeth Salomon, that he suffereth not the grey head 
of Joab to go down to the grave in peace, and that he shall 
cause the hoar head of Shemei to go down to the grave with 
blood; which by no means can be understood of his soul going 
to hell, which goeth not with blood; although it is plain 
enough by the word " hoar head," that he meaneth his body 
in age, or liis old body. And this text Pagnine, in his die- 
to the grave with blood," Edit. 1584. " Therefore thou shalt cause 
his hoar head to go down to the grave with blood," Geneva, 1560. 
" But his hoar head bring thou down to the grave with blood," Autho- 
rised version. 

Kai KarejBrjcrav avTo\, Kcii oaa eari avrcov ^covra et? aSov. Numb. 
xvi. 33. " Descenderuntque vivi in infernum," Vulg. " They, and 
all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit," Authorised 

[} Et descenderunt ipsi, et omnia qucECumque sunt eis, viventes ad 
■inferos. Notandum secundum locum terrenum dictos esse inferos, hoc 
est in inferioribus terree partibus. Varie quippe in scripturis et sub 
intellectu multiplici, sicut rerum de quibus agitur sensus exigit, nomen 
ponitur inferorum, et maxime in mortuis hoc accijii solet. Sed quoniam 
istos viventes dictum est ad inferos descendisse, et ipsa narratione quid 
factum fuerit satis apparet; manifestum est, ut dixi, inferiores partes 
teiTfe inferorum vocabulo nuncupatas, in comparatione hujus superioris 
terrae in cujus facie vivitur; sicut in comparatione coeli superioris, ubi 
sanctorum demoratio est angelorum, peccantes angelos in hujus aeris 
detrusos caliginem scriptura dicit tanquam carceribus inferi puniendos 
reservari. Augustini Quaestiones in Numeros, c. xxix. Opera, Vol. iii. 
pp. 838, 839. Edit. Bened. Paris. 1836.] 

P Inter mortem autem et inferos hoc interest : mors est, qua anima 
separatur a corpore ; infernus, locus in quo animtc recluduntur, sive 
in refrigcrio, sive in pa>nis, pro qualitate meritorum. Comment. Hiero- 
nymi in Osee. c. xiii. Opera, Vol. in. p. 1329.] 


tionary, thought necessary to be understood of the grave, 
although he make the word sheol indifferent to signify "hell," 
and the "grave." That all went to hell, some to rest, and some 
to torments, it was first devised by Marcion the heretic. But 
St Jerome is once again cited in Osea, cap. xiii. where he 
saith, " that hell is a place wherein souls are included," &c. : 
by wliich you see that he speaketh not of limhus, wherein 
souls were included before Christ, but of such a place wherein 
they are now included ; taking the word in/emus generally 
for any place that receiveth the souls of the departed, as he 
saith most plainly himself in the same place : Quicquid 
igitur separat fratres, infernus est appellandus. "Whatso- 
ever doth separate brethren, is to be called hell." Augustine 
is quoted to multiply a lie, and for nothing else, as I have 
shewed before. 

Martin. And in this sense it is also often said in the holy scrip- Martin, 
tures, that such and such were gathered, or laid to their fathers, though ^'^• 
they were buried in divers places, and died not in the same state of The scrip- 
salvation, or damnation. In that sense, Samuel being raised up to speak another Lii, 
to Saul, said, " To-morrow thou and thy sons shall be with me :" that the'dlmned°^ 
is, dead, and in hell, though not in the same place or state there: in 
this sense all such places of the holy scripture as have the word "infei-i," 
or "infernus," correspondent both to the Greek and Hebrew, ought to 
be, and may be most conveniently translated by the word "hell." As 
when it is said, " Thou hast delivered my soul from the lower hell," Ab inferno 
Psal. Ixxxviii. 13, that is, as St Augustine expoundeth it, " Thou hast 
preserved me from mortal sins, that would have brought me into the 
lower hell, which is for the damned." Which place of holy scripture, 
and the like, when they translate " grave," see how miserably it soundeth : 
" Thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest grave." Which they Bib. 1579. 
would never say for very shame, but that they are afraid to say in 
any place, be the holy scriptures never so plain, that any soul was 
delivered or returned from hell, lest thereof it might follow by and by, 
that the patriarchs, and our Saviour Christ, were in such a hell, 

Fulke. That which is spoken indifferently of the elect Fulke, 
and reprobate, must needs bo understood of that which is ^'^' 
common to both, that is, corporal death. How can it be 
verified of their souls, that they were laid to the fathers, 
when between the godly and the wicked there is an infinite 
distance? but the earth, the grave, or pit, is a common 
receptacle of all dead bodies. That Samuel, which being 
raised up spake to Saul, might ti-uly say of his soul, though 


not of all his sons, that he should be with him in hell, (for 
it was the spirit of Satan, and not of Samuel, although coun- 
terfeiting Samuel,) he might speak of the death of Saul and 
his sons. As for that verse of the eighty-fifth psalm \ where- 
upon you do falsely so often allege St Augustine's resolution, 
what absurdity hath it, to translate it, "from the lowest grave," 
or "from the bottom of the grave" ? whereby David meaneth 
extreme danger of death that he was in by the mahce of his 
persecuting enemies, Saul and his accomplices. But we "are 
afraid to say in any place, that any 'soul was delivered and 
returned from hell.' " We say that the souls of all the faith- 
ful are delivered from hell ; but of any which after death is 
condemned to hell, we acknowledge no return. And these 
words are spoken by David while he lived, and praised God 
for his deliverance; which might be not only from the "grave," 
but also from "hell," saving that he here speaketh of his pre- 
servation from death. 

IMAnTiN, Martin. And that this is their fear, it is evident, because that in 

14- all other places, where it is plain that the holy scriptures speak of 

the hell of the damned, from whence there is no return, they trans- 
late there the veiy same word " hell," and not " grave." As for example, 
Prov. XV. 24. " The way of life is on high to the prudent, to avoid from hell beneath^." 
Lo, here that is translated " hell beneath," wliich before was translated 
" the lowest grave." And again, " Hell and destruction are before the 
Lord : how much more the hearts of the sons of men 1" But when in 
the holy scriptures there is mention of delivery of a soul from hell. 
Bib. 1579. then thus they translate : " God shall deliver my soul from the power 
inferi. of the grave, for he will receive me." Can you tell what they would 

say ? doth God deliver them from the grave, or from temporal death, 

[1 on TO eXfus (Tov fieya eV efie, kol ippvcro) ti)v \j/v^i']v fiov i^ 
ahov KarcoTaTov. Psal, Lxxxv. 13. "Quia misericordia tua magna est 
super me ; et eruisti animam meam ex inferno inferiori," Vulg. " For 
great is thy mercy toward me ; and thou hast delivered my soul from 
the nethermost hell," Bishops' bible, 1584; Cranmer, 1562. "For 
great is thy mercy toward me ; for thou hast delivered my soul from 
the lowest grave," Geneva version, 1560, 1579.] 

^ '08o\ C^TjS diavotjixara <tvv€tov, Iva iKKkivas eK tov aSov (rcodrj. 
Prov. XV. 24. " Semita vitse super eruditum, ut declinet de inferno no- 
vissimo," Vulg. " The way of life is above to the wise, that he may 
depart from hell beneath," Version 1611. "The way of life is on high 
to the prudent, to avoid from hell beneath," Geneva, 1560. " The 
way of life leadeth unto heaven, that a man should beware of hell 


whom he receiveth to his mercy 1 or hath the grave any power over 
the soul? Again, when they say, "Wliat man liveth and shall not 
see death? shall he deliver his soul from the hand of the grave?" 

FtilJce. I have shewed before divers thnes, that although Fulke, 
the Hebrew word sheol do properly signify a receptacle of ■^'*" 
the bodies after death, yet when mention is of the wicked, by 
consequence it may signify "hell ;" as the day signifieth light, 
the night darkness, fire heat, peace signifieth prosperity, and 
an hundi^ed such like speeches. But where you say that 
Proverbs xv. 24, that is translated "hell beneath," which before 
was translated the " lowest grave," Psalm Ixxxv. 13, you say 
untruly ; for although in both places there is the word sheol, 
yet in that psahn there is tachtijah, in the Proverbs mattah, ''t- : - 
for which if it were translated "the grave," that declineth, or is ritSO 
downward, it were no inconvenience. In the other texts 
you trifle upon the word "soul;" whereas the Hebrew word sig- 
nifieth not the reasonable soul, which is separable from the 
body, but the life, or the whole person of man, which may 
rightly be said to be dehvered from the hand or power of 
the grave, as the verse 48^ doth plainly declare, when in the 
latter part is repeated the sense of the former, as it is in 
many places of the Psalms. 

Martin. If they take " gi'ave" properly, where man's body is buried, Martin, 
it is not true either that every soul, yea, or e\erj body is buried in ' 

beneath," Cranmer, 1562. " The way of life is on high to the wise, 
that a man should beware of hell beneath," Bishops' bible, 1584. 

'Ek x^i-po^ a8ov pvcrofiai, Koi eK davarov XvTpuxrofiai avrovs' ttov 
■fj VLKT) aov, davare ; ttov to Kevrpov (tov, oSt; ; " De manu mortis liberabo 
eos, de morte redimam eos; ero mors tua, o mors, morsus tuus ero, 
inferne," Vulg. " I will ransom them from the power of the grave ; 
I will redeem them from death : O death, I will be thy plagues ; O 
grave, I will be thy destruction," Version 1611. Hosea xiii. 14. 

Hov (TOV, davare, to KiVTpov ; ttov aov, aSr], to vIkos ; " Ubi est, 
mors, victoria tua ? ubi est, mors, stimulus tuus ?" Vulg. " Oh death, 
where is thy sting ? oh grave, where is thy victory ?" Authorised ver- 
sion, 1611. 1 Cor. XV. 55.] 

P pv(T€Tai TTjv ■^v)(i)v avTov €K x^'poy 0.80V ; Psal. Ixxxvii. 48. "Eruet 
animam suam de manu inferi ?" Vulg. Ixxxix. 48. " And shall he 
deliver his soul from the hand of hell?" Bishops' bible, 1584 ; Cranmer, 
1562. "Shall he deliver his soul from the hand of the grave?" Geneva, 
1560 ; Authorised version.] 


a grave. But if in all such places they will say they mean nothing 
else but to signify death, and that to go down into the grave, and to 
die, is all one ; we ask them, why they follow not the words of the 
holy scripture to signify the same thing, which call it going down to 
" hell," not going down to the " grave" ? Here they must needs open 
the mystery of antichrist working in their translations, and say, that 
so they should make hell a common place to all that departed in the 
old testament; which they will not, no, not in the most important places 
of our belief concerning our Saviour Christ's descending into hell, and 
triumphing over the same. Yea, therefore of purpose they will not, 
only for to defeat that part of our christian creed. 

FuLKE, FulTce. We cannot always take the word "grave" pro- 

■'^' perly, when the scripture useth it figuratively. But if we 

say, to go down to the grave and to die is all one, you ask 
us why we follow not the words of the holy scripture. I 
answer. We do, for the scripture calleth it "grave," and not 
"hell." Where then is your vain clattering of the mystery of 
antichrist, that we must open ? Because we will not acknow- 
ledge that heretical common-place, invented by Marcion the 
heretic, we purpose to defeat the article of Christ's descend- 
ing into hell. A monstrous slander ! when we do openly 
confess it, and his triumphing over hell in more triumphant 
manner than you determine it. For if he descended into 
that hell only, in which were the souls of the feitliful, which 
was a place of rest, of comfort, of joy, and felicity ; what 
triumph was it to overcome such an hell? which, if you 
take away the hateful name of " hell," by your own descrip- 
tion will prove rather an heaven than an hell. But we 
believe that he triumphed over the hell of the damned, 
and over all the power of darkness, which he subdued by 
the virtue of his obechence and sacrifice, so that it should 
never be able to claim or hold any of his elect, whom he 
had redeemed. 

Martin, Martin. As when the prophet first, Osea xiii., and afterward the 

apostle, 1 Cor. xv. in the Greek, say thus ^ : Ero mors tua, o mors, morsvK 

n 'K.aTtnoQrj 6 Odvaros fls vikos. ttov (tov, ddvare, to Ktvrpov ; tvov 
(rov, a8r], to vIkos ; to Se KevTpov tov OavaTov rj dfiapTia. 1 Cor. xv. 
54, 65, 56. "Absorptaest mors in victoria: ubi est, mors, victoria tua? 
ubi est, mors, stimulus tuus ? Stimulus autem mortis peccatum est," 
Vulg. " Death is consumed into victory. Death, where is thy sting ? 



tuus ero, infcrne. Ubi est, mors, stimulus tuns? ubi est, infefi-ne, victoria ^'y^'^ 
tua ? " O death, I will be thy death : I will be thy sting, O hell. ^ ^,j ' 
Where is, O death, thy sting ? where is, O hell, thy victory V They 
translate in both places, " O grave," instead of " O hell." What else ^iij- 1573. 
can be their meaning hereby, but to draw the reader from the com- 
mon sense of our Saviour Christ's descending into hell, and conquering 
the same, and bringing out the fathers and just men triumphantly from 
thence into heaven? which sense hath always been the common sense 
of the catholic church and holy doctors, specially upon this place of ^ee s. Hier. 

'' 5 1 .; X i. Comment, in 

the prophet. And what a kind of speech is this, and out of all tune, i3. Osee^, 
to make our Saviour Christ say, " O grave, I will be thy destruction" ? 
as though he had triumphed over the grave, and not over hell ; or over 
the grave, that is, over death ; and so the prophet should say " death" 
twice, and "hell" not at all. 

Fulke. St Jerome, whom you quote in the margm, to Fulke, 
prove that all the catholic doctors understood this text of^^- 
Osee, of Christ's descending into hell, and thereby reprove 
our translation, which for "hell" saith "grave," after he hath 
repeated the words of the apostle, 1 Cor. xv. upon this text, 
thus he concludeth : Itaque quod ille in resu7'rectionem 
interpretatus est Domini, nos aliter interpretari nee jyos- 
sumus nee audemus. "Therefore that which the apostle hath 
interpreted of our Lord's resurrection, we neither can nor 
dare interpret otherwise." You see therefore by Jerome's 
judgment, that in this text, which is proper of Christ's re- 
surrection, it is more proper to use the word of "grave," than 
of "hell." How vainly the same Jerome interpreteth the last 
words of this chapter, of spoiling the treasure of every vessel 
that is desirable, of Christ's deUvering out of hell the most 
precious vessels of the saints, &c. I am not ignorant ; but we 
speak of translation of the 14th verse, wliich being un- 
derstood of Christ's resurrection, it argueth, that the grave 
is spoken of, rather than hell. As for the repetition of 

Hell, where is thy victory ? The sting of death is sin," Tyndale, 
1534. " Death is swallowed up in victory ; death, where is thy sting ? 
Hell, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin," Cranmer, 1539. 
Bishops' bible, 1584, with an interjection. "Death is swallowed up into 
victory. Death, where is thy sting ? gi'ave, where is thy victory ? the 
sting of death is sin," Geneva, 1577. Authorised Version, 1611, with an 
interjection after. " Death is swallowed up in victory. Death, where is 
thy victory ! Death, where is thy sting, and the sting of death is sin," 
Rheims, 1582.] 

P Comment. Hieronymi in Osee, c. xiii. Opera, Vol. in. p. 1330.] 




one thing twice for vehomency and certainty's sake, [it] is no 
inconvenient tiling, but commonly used in the scriptures. 




Mdrtbi. Wliy, my masters, you that are so wonderful precise trans- 
lators, admit that our Saviour Christ descended not into hell beneath, 
as you say, yet 1 think you will grant that he triumphed over hell, 
and was conqueror of the same. Why then did it not please you to 
suffer the prophet to say so at the least, rather than that he had con- 
quest only of "death" and the " grave" ? You abuse your ignorant reader 
very impudently, and your own selves very damnably, not only in this, 
but in that you make " grave," and " death," all one ; and so, where 
tlie holy scripture often joineth together "death" and "hell," as things 
different and distinct, you make them speak but one thing twice, idly 
and supei-fluously. 

Fulke. For our faith of Clu'ist's triumphing over hell, 
I have spoken already sufficiently ; but of the prophet's 
meaning, beside the words themselves, the apostle is best 
expounder, who referreth it to the resurrection, and his 
victory over death, which he hath gained not for liimself 
alone, but for all his elect. Where you say we make "grave" 
and "death" all one, it is false. We know they differ; but 
that one may be signified by the other, without any idle or 
superfluous repetition, in one verse, I refer me to a whole 
hmidred of examples, that may be brought out of the Psalms, 
the Prophets, and the Proverbs, where words of the same, 
like, or near signification are twice together repeated, to 
note the same matter ; which none but a blasphemous dog 
will say to be done idly or superfluously. 


Hierom. in 
Osee. c. 13. i 

Martin. But will you know that you should not confound them, 
but that mors and infernus, which are the words of the holy scripture, 
in all tongues are distinct ; hear what St Jerome saith : or if you will 
not hear, because you are of them which "have stopped their ears," 
let the indifferent christian reader hearken to this holy doctor and great 
interpreter of the holy scriptures, according to his singular knowledge 
in all the learned tongues. Upon the aforesaid place of the prophet, 
after he had spoken of our Saviour Christ's descending into hell, and 
overcoming of death, he addeth : " Between death and hell this is the 

[} Inter mortem autem et inferos hoc interest : mors est, qua anima 
separatur a corpore ; infernus, locus in quo animae recluduntur, sive in 
refrigerio sive in poenis, pro qualitate meritorum. Hoc diximus, ut os- 
tenderemus id mortem facere, quod meretricem mulierem. Mors enim 


difference, that death is that whereby the soul is separated from the 

body ; liell is the place Avhere souls are included, either in rest, or 

else in pains, according to the quality of their deserts. And that death 

is one thing, and hell is another, the psalmist also declareth, saying : 

" There is not in death that is mindful of thee, but in hell who Psai. vi. 

shall confess to thee ?" And in another place : " Let death come upon 

them, and let them go down into hell alive." Thus far St Jerome. 

Fulke, He that by the grave understandeth a place Fulke, 
to receive the bodies of the dead, and figuratively death, ^^' 
doth no more confound the words of "death" and the "grave," 
than he that by a cup understandeth a vessel to receive 
drink properly, and figuratively that drink which is con- 
tained in such a vessel. Therefore that you cite out of 
Jerome maketh nothing against us; for he himself, although 
deceived by the Septuagintes, or rather by the ambiguity of 
the word a^jy?, which they use, in the signification of the 
Hebrew word '?ii«?Ji?, yet by infernus understandeth them 
that be in inferno, and the dead, as we do by the word 
"grave" oftentimes. As for liis opinion of the godly souls 
in happy hell before Christ's death, or his interpretation 
of any other part of scripture, we profess not to follow in 
our translations, but as near as we can, the true signifi- 
cation of the words of holy scripture, with such sense 
(if any thing be doubtful) as the proper circumstances of 
every place will lead us unto, that we may attain to the 
meamng of the Holy Ghost. 

Martin. By which differences of "death" and "hell," whereof we IMartin, 
must often advertise the reader, are meant two things: death, and the 
going down of the soul into some receptacle of hell, in that state of the 
old testament, at what time the holy scriptures used this phrase so often. 
Now, these impudent translators in all these places translate it " grave," Sib. 1579. 
of purpose to confound it and "death" together, and to make it but one 
thing, which St Jerome sheweth to be different, in the very same 
sense that we have declared. 

dividit fratres, hoc et mulier facit. In fratribus, omnem intellige ca- 
ritatem: quod et mater dividatur a filia, et pater a filio, et frater a 
fratre. Quod autem aliud sit mors, et aliud infernus, et Psalmista 
demonstrat, dicens : JVon est in morte qui memor sit tui ; in inferno autem 
quis confitebitur tibi ? et in alio loco : Veniat mors super eos, et descendant 
in infernum viventes. Hieronymi Comment, in Osee. c. xiii. Opera, 
III. p. 1329.] 

r 1 20 






Fulhe. The difference of mors and infernns, which 
Jerome maketh, cannot always stand; as I have shewed of 
the hoar heads of Jacob, Job, and Shemei, (which none but 
mad men will say to have descended into a receptacle of 
souls,) beside other places of scripture, where sheol must of 
necessity signify a place for the body. And even those 
places of the Psalms, that St Jerome calleth to witness, do 
make against his error. For where David saith. Psalm vi.' 
" In hell who shall confess unto thee ?" how can it be true 
of the souls of the faithful, being in that holy hell, Abra- 
ham's bosom ? Did not Abraham confess unto God, and 
acknowledge his mercy? Did not Lazarus the same? did not 
all the holy souls departed confess God in Abraham's bosom ? 
Were all those blessed souls so unthankful, that being car- 
ried into that place of rest and comfort, none of them would 
confess God's benefits? It is plain therefore, to the con- 
fusion of your error, that sheol in that place of David must 
needs signify the " grave," in which no man doth confess, 
praise, or give thanks unto God, of whom in death there is no 
i-emembrance. Therefore he desireth hfe and restoring of 
health, that he may praise God in his church or congre- 
gation. Likewise in the 54th psalm ^, where he prophesieth 
unto the wicked a sudden death, such as befel to Chore, 
Dathan, and Abiram, wliich went down quick into the "grave ;" 
not into "hell," whither come no bodies of men hving, but 
the souls of men that are dead. 


Martin. But, alas ! it is the veiy nature of the Hebrew, Greek, or 
Latin, that forceth them so much to English it "grave," rather than 
" hell." We appeal to all Hebricians, Grecians, and Latinists in the 
world : first, if a man would ask. What is Hebrew, or Greek, or Latin 
for "hell"? whether they would not answer these three words, as the 
very proper words to signify it, even as panis signifieth " bread." Se- 
condly, if a man w^ould ask. What is Hebrew, or Greek, or Latin, for 
a "grave"? whether they would answer these words, and not three 
Sepuichrum. other, which they know are as proper words for "grave,'' as lac is 
for "milk." 


£1 'Ev Se Tw oSt; t'is i^oiiokoyqa-eral <toi ; Paal, vi. 5. " In inferno 
autem quis confitebitur tibi," Vulg.] 

^ EXpero) davaros iir avToiis, Kcii Kara^ijTcoaav ds a8ov ^covres. 
Psal. liv. 15. "Veniat mors super illos: et descendant in infemura 
viventcs/' Vulg. Psal. Iv. 15.J 


Fulke. The very nature of the Hebrew word ^ii^l> Fulke, 
is most properly to signify a " grave", or receptacle of dead 
bodies, as all that be learned in that tongue do know. About 
the Greek and Latin terms is not our question, and therefore 
you deal deceitfully to handle them all three together : 
although neither oto/;p nor in/emus are so proper for "hell," 
but that they may be taken also sometimes " for the grave," 
and so perhaps were meant by the Greek and Latin translators in 
divers places. You speak, therefore, as one void of all shame, 
to say they are as proper for " hell," as panis for " bread." 
Where you ask what is Hebrew, Greek, or Latin, for " hell," 
you must understand, that if you speak of a proper word 
for those invisible places, wherein the souls departed are either 
in joy or torments ; I answer, there is no proper word for 
those places, either in Hebrew, Greek, or Latin. For that 
which of all these tongues is translated "heaven," is the proper 
word for the sensible sky, in which are the sun, moon, and 
stars ; and by a figure is transferred to signify the place of 
God's glory, in which he reigneth with the blessed spirits 
of angels and men, above this sensible world. "Paradise" and 
" Abraham's bosom," who is so childish not to acknowledge 
them to be borrowed words, and not proper? So for the 
receptacle of the reprobate souls, in the Hebrew tongue 
topheth or gehinnom, which properly are the names of an 
abominable place of idolatry, are used ; and sheol sometimes 
figuratively may signify the same. In Greek and Latin, 
gekenna is used for the same, which is borrowed of the 
Hebrew. Sometimes also the word a^»/9, in Greek, is taken 
for the place of the damned and the kingdom of darkness. 
The Latin word infernus is any low place. Wherefore I 
cannot marvel sufiiciently at your impudency, which afiirm 
these three words, ^^'ii.tiJ, a^rj^ and infernus, to be as proper 
for our Enghsh word " hell," as panis is for " bread." That 
there be other words beside these in all the three tongues to 
signify a "grave," I marvel to what purpose you tell us, except 
you would have ignorant folk suppose that there cannot be 
two Hebrew, Greek, or Latin words for one thing. 

Martin. Yea, note and consider diligently what we will say. Let RTartin, 
them shew me out of all the bible one place, where it is certain and ~ 
agi-eed among all, that it must needs signify "grave"; let them shew 



me in any one such place, that the holy scripture useth any of those 
former three words for "grave." As when Abraham bought a place 
Gen. xlix. of burial, whether he bought " ivfernum " ; or when it is said the kings 
of Israel were buried in the monuments or sepulchres of their fathers, 
whether it say, in irifernis patrum suorum. So that not only divines by 
this observation, but grammarians also and children may easily see, that 
the proper and natural signification of the said words is in English 
"hell," and not "grave." 

FiTLKE, FuUce. We note well your foolish subtilty, that will 

have us to shew you one place, where it is certain and 
agreed among all, that sheol must needs signify "grave." I am 
persuaded that you and such as you are, that have sold your- 
selves to anticlirist, to maintain his heresies with all impudency, 
will agree to nothing that shall be brought, though it be 
never so plain and certain that it must needs so signify. I 
have already shewed you three places, where the hoary head 
is said to go down into sheol, that is, into the "grave."" For 
whither should the hoary head go but into the grave? 
Nothing can be more plain to him that will agree to truth, 
that sheol in all such places is taken for the "grave." But 
to omit those places, because I have spoken of them already, 
what say you to that place, Numb, xvi., where the earth 
opened her mouth, and swallowed up the rebels with their 
tents, and all their substance of cattle, and whatsoever they 
had? where the text saith, "They went down, and all that 
they had, alive, sheolah, into the pit or grave." God made 
a great grave or hole in the earth, to receive them all. 
Where no man will say that either the bodies of these men, 
or their substance of tents, cattle, and stuft*, went into "hell," 
as it is sure their souls went into torment. And if authority 
do weigh more with you than good reason, hear what St 
Augustine writeth upon the same text, and how he taketh 
your inferos or infernum, which in the Hebrew is sheol, 
qucest. super Num. Lib. iv. c. 29 : Et descenderunt ipsi 
et omnia qucecunque sunt eis viventes ad inferos. Notan- 
dum secundmn locum terrenum dictos esse inferos, hoc est, 
&c. "And they themselves descended, and all that they had, 
alive unto inferos, the lower parts. It is to be noted, that 
inferi are spoken of an earthly place, that is, in the low 
parts of the earth. For diversely and under manifold 
understanding, even as the sense of tilings which are in hand 


requlreth, the name of inferi is put in the scriptures, and 
especially it is wont to be taken for the dead. But foras- 
much as it is said that those descended alive ad inferos, 
and by the very narration it appeareth sufficiently what was 
done ; it is manifest, as I said, that the lower parts of the 
earth are termed by this word inferi, in comparison of this 
upper part of the earth in which we live. Like as in com- 
parison of the higher heaven, where the dwelling of the 
holy angels is, the scripture saith, that the sinful angels being 
thrust down into the darkness of this air, are reserved as it 
were in prisons of a lower part, or hell, to be punished." 
St Augustine here doth not only understand this place of the 
grave, or receptacle of bodies ; but also sheweth that the 
Latin word inferi or infernus doth not always signify " hell," 
as you made it of late as proper for " hell," as |9an?.s for 
"bread." But because you shall not complain of the singu- 
larity of this example, although you require but one, I will 
add out of the Psalm cxli., where the prophet saith, "Our 
bones are scattered at the very brink or mouth of sheol, 
'the grave'." ^ How can you understand him to speak of hell? 
For the grave, and not hell, is a place for dead men's bones: 
as he speaketh of the faithful, by the wicked counted as good 
as dead and rotten, consumed to the bones. By these and 
many other examples it is manifest, that the proper significa- 
tion of sheol in English is a "grave," and not " heU." 

Martin. And therefore Beza doth strangely abuse his reader more Martin, 
than in one place, saying that the Hebrew word doth properly signify ^"'• 
"grave," being deduced of a verb that signifieth to crave or ask, be- Actsii.'25, 27 
cause it craveth always new corses. As though the grave craved more xv. 55. 
than hell doth, or swallowed more, or were more hardly satisfied and pj.ov'l'%2 

XXX.'lS, l(i3". 

P 'i2(r€i TTaxos yrjs 8ifppayri erri rjjs -y^r, hiajKopTTicrdrj to. ocrra 
rjiioiv napa. tov aBrjv, Psal. cxl. 7. " Sicut crassitude terrse erupta esfc 
super terram, dissipata sunt ossa nostra secus infemum," Psal. cxli. 7. 

r^ KaTanlcofxev 8e avrov axrnfp ahrjs ^wvra, Prov. i. 12. "Deglutia- 
mus eum sicut infernus viventem," Vulg. " We will swallow them up 
alive like a grave even whole," Geneva bible, 1560. " We shall swal- 
low them up like the hell," Cranmer, 1562. " Let us swallow them 
up like the grave," Bishops' bible, 1584. Authorised version, 1611.] 

[^ "A8t]s Koi €po)s yvvaiKos, Prov. xxx. 16. " Infernus et os vulvs," 
Vulg. " The grave and the barren womb," Bishops' bible, 1560, Auhorised 
version. "The grave, a woman's womb," Cranmer, 1562.] 




filled than hell; for in all such places they translate "grave." And 
in one such place they say, " The grave and destruction can never be 
fulP." Whereas themselves a little before translate the very same words 
Prov. XV. 11. "hell and destruction";" and therefore it might have pleased them to 
have said also, " hell and destruction can never be full," as their pew- 
fellows do in their translation : and again, " We shall swallow them up 
like hell." " The devil," we read, "goeth about continually like a roar- 
ing lion, seeking whom he may devour :" who is called in the Apo- 
calypse " Abaddon," that is, " destruction." And so very aptly " hell" 
and "destruction" are joined together, and are truly said never to be 
filled. What madness and impudency is it then for Beza to write thus : 
" Wlio is ignorant that by the Hebrew word rather is signified a "grave," 
for that it seemeth after a sort to crave always new carcases V 

Prov. xxvii. 

Bib. 15G2. 
Prov. i. 
1 Pet. V. 

Beza, before 



Fulke. Beza doth not abuse his reader, to tell him that 
slieol is derived of a verb that signifieth " craving " or 
" asking ;" but you do unhonestly abuse Beza, as you do 
every man, when you take in hand to affirm that he standeth 
only upon the etymology of sheol, to prove that it signifieth 
" the grave." 


Annot. in 
Acts ii. 24. 

Martin. And again, concerning our Saviour Christ's descending 
into hell, and delivering the fathers from thence, "it is marvel," saith 
Beza, "that the most part of the ancient fathers were in this error; 
whereas with the Hebrews the word sheol signifieth nothing else but 
''grave'." Before, he pleaded upon the etymology or nature of the 
Avord ; now also he pleadeth upon the authority of the Hebrews them^ 
selves. If he were not known to be very impudent and obstinate, we 

^ 'Abr]s Koi dncoXeia ovk ifiTrLfinXavTai, Prov. xxvii. 20. " Infernus 
et perditio nunquam implentur," Vulg. " The grave and destruction 
can never be full," Geneva, 1500, " Hell and destruction are never 
full," Cranmer, 1562. Bishops' bible, 1584. Authorised version.] 

[2 "Abrjs Koi oTrcoXeta, Prov. XV. 11. " Infernus et perditio," Vulg. 
"Hell and destruction are before the Lord," Bishops' bible, 1584. 
Geneva, 1560. Authorised version. "Hell and perdition are known 
vnto the Lord," Cranmer, 1562.] 

P Fateor tamen etiam de profundissimis illis subterraneis locis idem 
vocabulum interdum dici, quos alibi scriptura vocat abyssum, unde 
etiam ports inferorum nominantur. Matt. xvi. 18. et dives ille apud 
inferos collocatur in summo cruciatu, Luc. xviii. 23. et rogant daemones 
ne mittantur in abyssum, Luc. viii. 31. Sed quid quisque locus ferat, 
diligenter animadvertendum. •••••» Dice igitur /"iJ^^i^ (scheol) hoc 
in loco (Act. ii. 27.) propria significatione accipiendum pro sepulchro, 
et "animani meam" vel loco pronominis me accipi, sicut vulgo dici- 
mus ma personne, etc. Nov. Test. Edit. Beza, 1582, pp. 415, 416.3 


•would easily mistrust his skill in the Hebrew, saying that among the 
Hebrews the word signifieth "nothing else but grave." 

Nihil aliud. 

Fiilke. Beza saith that the word sheol properly signi- Fulke, 
fieth nothings but "the o-rave:" nevertheless he saith it is • 
taken figuratively for " tribulation," which is near to ex- 
treme destruction, yea, and sometime for the " bottomless 
pit of hell." 

Martin. I would gladly know what are those Hebrews. Doth not Martin, 
the Hebrew text of the holy scripture best tell us the use of this 
word ? Do not themselves translate it " hell" very often ? do not the 
Septuagiuta always ? If any Hebrew in the world were asked, how he 
would turn these words into Hebrew, Similes estis sepulchris dealbatis, 
" You are like to wliited graves ;" and, Sepulchrum ejus apud vos est, 
" His grave is among you" : would any Hebrew, I say, translate it 
by this Hebrew word which Beza saith among the Hebrews signifieth sheoiim. 
nothing else but "grave"? Ask your Hebrew readers in this case, 
and see what they avLU answer. 

Fulke, The best of the Hebrews, that either interpreted Fulke, 
scriptures, or made dictionaries, Jews or Christians, do ac- ^^* 
knowledge that sheol doth properly signify " the grave." 
That the Septuaginta do always translate it adirs, it proveth 
not that it always signifieth "hell;" for oiSrj<s signifieth not 
always " hell," as in the place of Numb. xvi. As for the 
turning of Latin into Hebrew, is not our controversy, but 
of translating Hebrew into English: ^Aeo^ may signify "the 
grave," " the hole," " the pit," as fovea, though it be not 
all one with the Latin word sepulchrum. And yet rabbi 
Salomon, whom you boldly cite in the 27th section, saith in Gen. 


plainly, that the true and proper interpretation of sheol is 
keber, which you say is as proper for " grave," as lac is for 
" milk." 

Martin. What are those Hebrews then that Beza speaketh of? For- Martin, 

sooth, certain Jews or later rabbins, which, as they do falsely inter- * 

„ . . , . Theprotes- 

pret all the holy scriptures against our Saviour Christ in other points tants in inter- 

c ,,„.■,.. . 1, , . , pretation of 

of our belief, as against his incarnation, death, and resurrection ; so do scriptures 
they also falsely interpret the holy scriptures against his descending late Jews, 
into hell, which those Jewish rabbins deny, because they look for the ancient 
another Messias that shall not die at all, and consequently shall not apSic^ 
after his death go down into hell, and deliver the fathers expecting his cniwcii- 
coming, as our Saviour Christ did. And therefore those Jewish rabbins 
hold, as the heretics do, that the fathers of the old testament were in 




Isai. vii. 

heaven before our Saviour's incarnation. And these rahbins are they 
whicli also pervert the Hebrew word to the signification of "grave," 
in such places of the holy scriptures as speak either of our Saviour 
Christ's descending into hell, or of the fathers going down into hell ; 
even in like manner as they pervert other Hebrew words of the holy 
scripture, as namely, alma to signify a young woman, not a virgin, 
against our Saviour's birth of the blessed Virgin Mary. 



Fulke. Beza speaketh of the holy men of God which 
did write the scriptures, and so use that word slieol, as it 
cannot be taken to signify any thing properly, but " the 
grave" or " pit." And as for the Jewish rabbins, what 
reason is there why we should not credit them in the inter- 
pretation of words of their own tongue, rather than any 
ancient Christians ignorant of the Hebrew tongue? And 
although they do sometimes frowardly contend about the 
signification of a Avord or two, against the truth of the gospel, 
that is no sufficient cause why they should be discredited in 
all words. But beside them, Beza hath also the best Hebricians 
that have been in this last age among the Christians, not only 
protestants, but papists also, namely Pagninus, and Masius, 
in their dictionaries. 

Mahtin, Martin. And if these later rabbins be the Hebrews that Beza 

meaneth, and which these gay English translators follow, we lament 
that they join themselves with such companions, being the sworn ene- 
mies of our Saviour Christ. Surely the christian Hebrews in Rome 
and elsewhere, which of great rabbins are become zealous doctors of 
Christianity, and therefore honour every mystery and article of our 
christian faith concerning our Saviour Christ, they dispute as vehe- 
mently against those other rabbins as we do against the heretics; and 

1 Sam. xxiii. among other things, they tell them that Saul said, " Raise me up 
Samuel ;" and that the woman said, " I see gods ascending out of the 
earth," and, "An old man is ascended or come up;" and that Samuel 
said, " Why hast thou disquieted me, that I should be raised up V and, 
" To-morrow thou and thy sons shall be with me." And the book of 

Eccl. xlvl. 23. Ecclesiasticus saith, that Samuel died, and afterward "lifted up his voice 
out of the earth," &c. All which the holy scripture would never have 
thus expressed, whether it were Samuel indeed or not, if Saul and the 
Jews then had believed that their prophets and patriarchs had been 
in heaven above. And as for the Hebrew word, they make it, as every 
boy among the Jews doth well know, as proper a word for "hell, 
as panis is for "bread," and as unproper for a grave; though so it 
may be used by a figure of speech, as cymba Charontis is Latin for 


Fulke. If we followed the Jews in exposition of the Fulke, 
scriptures against Christ, we were not so much to be pitied *" ' 
as to be abhorred : but if we be content to learn the propriety 
of Hebrew words of the learned rabbins, as Jerome was 
glad to do of his rabbin, who (as it appeareth by his scholar 
in some places) was not excellently learned; there is no cause 
why any man should pity us, but them rather, that, to cloke 
their ignorance in the Hebrew tongue, pretend as if it were 
more unlawful to learn Hebrew of the Hebrew rabbins, 
than Latin of Quintilian or Priscian, and Greek of Gaza, 
Siiidas, and such hke. That you tell us of the Komish 
rabbins converted from Judaism to papistry, is not worth 
a straw. For their argument of Saul's and a witch's opinion, 
that the dead might be raised, proveth notliing in the world 
that they were in hell. And the son of Sirach sheweth 
himself not to be directed by the Spirit of God, which affirm- 
eth Samuel did Hft up his voice after liis death out of the 
earth, contrary to the judgment of catholic doctors of the 
church. For that the scripture speaketh of Samuel raised 
by the witch, is meant of a wicked spirit counterfeiting the 
shape and simiUtude of Samuel. For the souls of the faithful, 
and holy prophets, be not at the commandments of witches, 
but at rest with God, where they cannot be disquieted. As 
for the authority of those unknown authors, that teach boys 
to say sheol is as proper for " hell," as panis for " bread," 
we may esteem it to be of as good credit as Charon's boat, 
Pluto's palace, and Cerberus's three heads, &c. 

Martin. But what speak I of these? Do not the greatest and most Martin, 
ancient rabbins, (so to call them,) the Septuaginta, always translate the -^* 
Hebrew word by the Greek aSrjs, which is properly " hell ?" do not Gencb. lib. 3. 
the Talmudists, and Chaldee paraphrases, and rabbi Salomon Jarhi, ^■^"'*' 
handling these places of the psalms, " He will deliver my soul from 
the hand of sheol," interpret it by gehinum, that is, gehenna, " hell ?" 
and yet the Calvinists bring this place for an example that it signifieth 
" grave." Likewise upon this place, " Let all sinners be turned into 
sheol," the aforesaid rabbins interpret it by gehinum, " hell." Insomuch 
that in the Proverbs, and in Job, it is joined with "Abaddon." Where Prov. xv. 
rabbi Levi, according to the opinion of the Hebrews, expoundeth sheol *'"*' ^^"^ 
to be the lowest region of the Avorld, a deep place opposite to heaven, 
whereof it is written, " If I descended into hell, thou art present :'' and 
so doth rabbi Abraham expound the same word in chap. ii. Jonte. 

Fulke. Although the Septuaginta do always translate 27. ' '' 


slieol by the word acri<s, yet do they not thereby always 
understand " hell ;" as it is manifest in all those places, 
where the scripture speaketh of a receptacle of dead bodies. 
But now you will bear us down with rabbins, Talmudists, 
and Chaldee paraphrases. And first you say that all these, 
handling that verse of the 49th psalm, " He will dehver my 
soul from the hand of slieol," interpret it by gehinnom, that 
is, "hell." I grant that rabbi Joseph, using the liberty of a 
paraphrast, rather than a translator, interpreteth the word 
by gehinnom, that signifieth " hell-fire :" and so the sense is 
true ; for God delivered David from eternal damnation : 
but rabbi David Chimchi, expounding the same place accord- 
ing to the proper signification of sheol, saith, >^'>:i3rT "IQJ^ 
imj^ll, &c. "The prophet said, when he saAV the destruction of 
the souls of the wicked in their death, ' In the day in Avhich 
my body shall go down to {sheol) the grave, God shall de- 
liver my soul from the hand of (sheol) the grave, that my soul 
shall not perish with my body.' " You see, therefore, that 
all the rabbins be not of your side; no, nor rabbi Salomon 
Jarchi, whom you cite. For upon Genesis xxxvii. 35, 
where Jacob saith he will go down to the grave mourning, 
thus he writeth: "1J1 K1H "lip ]yih tDltt^S3: rh)^^ bl^* 
Mourning to sheol: according to the plain and literal sense, 
the interpretation thereof is ' the grave,' in my mourning 
I will be buried, and I Avill not be comforted all my days : 
but after the midrash, or exposition, not according to the 
letter, it is ' hell' This sign was dehvered by hands, or by 
tradition, from the mouth of his power, (that is, from a divine 
oracle ;) if not one of my sons shall die in my Hfe-time, I had 
confidence that I should not see hell." By this saying it is 
manifest, that this rabbin acknowledged the true and proper 
translation of this Avord sheol was "to the grave;" although 
after figurative, and sometimes fond, expositions, it was inter- 
preted for " hell." Likewise you say, but untruly, of this 
verse, Psal. ix. 18, " Let all simiers be turned to sheol f for 
there the Chaldee paraphrast retaineth the word sheol, and 
doth not give any other word for it. David Chimchi inter- 
preteth it according to the literal sense, "lip'? D"'y;i'") lllt^^ 
"Let the wicked be turned into the grave;" which is so strange 
with you to be answerable to sheol, although, as R. Salomon 
saith, it may be understood of their burial in hell. That 
sheol in the Proverbs and Job is joined with abaddon, it 


hindereth it not to sio-nify the o-rave, where is the destruction ptov. xr. 

o t/ o ' Job xxvu 

and consumption of tlie body. And Proverbs xv. 11, the 
Chaldee paraphrast retaineth sheol, which Kabuenaki ex- 
poundeth thus: ""IDJ^I, &c. It is said of sheol and ahaddon, 
that sheol is " the grave," "llpn, and ahaddon is " hell," 
which is deeper than the grave, &c." And although in Job 
rabbi Levi and others expound sheol for a secret place about 
the centre of the earth, which should seem to be hell ; yet 
they say not that this is the proper signification of the 
word sheol. For in Job xxi. 13, the Chaldee para- 
phrast for sheol interpreteth kebureta, " the grave" ; and Kjrinrilp 
in the xiv. 13, beith kebureta, " the house of the grave;" ^ '-^^ 
and xvii. 12 and 15, " the grave." In both which places 
rabbi Abraham Peritsol joineth sheol and keber together, t : ' 
both signifying " the grave" ; and in the latter verse 
he maketh Job to say to his friends, "D''2TDn ''11, the bars 
of lies with which you comfort me, into the midst of the 
pit of the grave shall go down with me when I die." By 
all which testimonies it is manifest, that sheol is not the proper 
word for " hell," the receptacle of souls ; but for " grave," 
the common dwelling-house of men's bodies. 

But you will press us yet further with the authority of 
rabbi Abraham upon Jonas ii. Indeed, in Abraham Aben 
Ezra I read as you say: but this is only his opinion of the 
figurative sense of that place ; for upon Hosee xiii. 14, he 
expoundeth bM^^ TD thus, " I have been a redeemer of thy 
fathers ; now I will be a destruction of death which is to 
thee." And so do R. Shelomo Jarchi, and rabbi David 
Chimchi : yea, so doth St Paul, more worth than all the 
rabbins that ever were, expound it. 

Martin. This being the opinion and the interpretation of the He- Martin, 
brews, see the skill or the honesty of Beza, saying that sheol, with the "'^^* 
Hebrews, signifieth nothing but "grave." Whereas indeed, to speak skil- 
fully, uprightly, and not contentiously, it may signify "grave" some- 
time secondarily, but " hell " principally and properly, as is manifest ; 
for that there is no other word so often used, and so familiar in the 
scriptures to signify "hell," as this; and for that the Septuuginta do 
always interpret it by the Greek word aBrjs. 

Ftdke. The opinion of the Hebrews being as I have Fulke, 
rehearsed out of their own words, "see the skill or honesty" ^^' 





Annot. in 
Acts ii. 27. 



of Martin, wliicli dare open his mouth against Beza in this 
matter, and tell us that sheol may secondarily signify " a 
grave;" whereas it doth first and principally so signify, 
howsoever the Septuaginta do interpret it by a^T}<;, which 
signifieth an obscure dark place under the earth, and not 
"hell" properly. 

Martin. The which Greek word is so notorious and peculiar for 
" hell," that the pagans use it also for " Pluto," whom they feigned to 
be god of hell, and not god of "graves ;" and if they would stand with 
us in this point, we might beat them with their own kind of reasoning 
out of poets and profane writers, and out of all lexicons. Unless they 
will tell us, contrary to their custom, that we Christians must attend 
the ecclesiastical use of this word in the bible and in christian writers, 
and that in them it signifieth " grave." For so Beza seemeth to say, 
that the Greek interpreters of the bilile translated the Hebrew word 
aforesaid by this Greek word, as signifying " a dark place ;" whereas 
the Greek poets used it for that which the Latins called inferos, that 
is "hell." "Which ambiguity," saith he, "of the word made many 
err, affirming Christ's descending into hell. So was limbus builded, 
whereunto afterward purgatory was laid.'"' 

Fulke. That Pluto of the poets is feigned to be the 
god of hell, it was hereof that they imagined hell to be a 
place under the earth, which was his palace, as earth was 
his kingdom ; or else, what becometh of the triple division of 
all the world, if Jupiter having heaven, Neptune the sea, 
Pluto should not have the earth? who had his name of the 
riches inclosed in the earth, and was also called ''Alri%, or 
'A'i^rjs, as in Homer II. xv. 

Zeii? Koi eyu>, Tpiraros S' AtS?;? evepoicriv avaucruiv, 

" Jupiter and I, and Pluto the third that ruleth over the 
dead." Whereof it is put in the genitive case, after such 
prepositions as govern an accusative or dative, where 
ot«-o9 "the house of Pluto"" is to be understood. I might 
here cite divers places out of Nonnus, the christian Greek 
poet, who seemeth to use ais and at^>y? for " the grave," 
spealdng of the resurrection of Christ, John ii. and of Lazarus, 
xi. But of the translation of the Greek word is not our 
question, but of the Hebrew word sheol, Avhich the Septuaginta 
turning into 9^*??, mean a place generally to receive the dead, 
which sometimes is the "grave" of the bodies, sometimes "hell"" 
of the souls. 


Martin. I see Beza's wiliness very well in this point : for here the Martin, 
man hath uttered all his heart, and the whole mystery of his crafty 
meaning of this corrupt translation : that to avoid these three things, 
" Christ's descending into hell," llmhus patrum, and purgatory, he and 
his companions wrest the foresaid words of the holy scriptures to the 
signification of " grave." But let the indifferent christian reader only 
consider Beza's own words in this place, point by point. 

Fulke. Beza useth no wiliness or craft at all ; for he doth FuuiE, 

always openly detest the dreams of llmhus and purgatory, 

and whatsoever may depend upon them. But let us see 

what you can gather out of liis words. 

Martin. First he saith, that the Greek poets were wont to use the Martin, 


Greek woi-d for " hell ;' secondly, that they which interpreted the bible * 

out of Hebrew into Greek, used the very same word for that Hebrew 

word, -whereof we have now disputed ; thirdly, that the ancient fathers, 

(for of them he speaketh, as a little before he expresseth,) understood the 

said Greek word for " hell," and tliereby grew to those errors, as he Acts u. 24. 

impudently affirmeth, of Christ's descending into hell, and of the place 

in hell where the fathers rested expecting the coming of our Saviour, 

&c. Whereby the reader doth easily see, that both the profane, and 

also the ecclesiastical use of the word is for " hell," and not for " grave." 

Fulke. I looked for some great matter, when you be- Fulke, 
gan to consider so diligently from point to point: but I see ^^' 
we shall have nothing but this cold collection, "that both the 
profane and ecclesiastical use of this word ct^j;? is for 'hell,' 
and not for the 'grave'." That it is used for "hell," no man 
denieth : but that it is used only for "hell," Beza saith not, and 
I have proved that it is not. As also it may be proved by 
divers other places out of the apocryphal writings ; namelv, 
Wisd. xvi. 13, where it is translated for "death" by your own 
Latin translator, being the same verse that is in the song of 
Anna, 1 Sam. ii., where sheol is used, and is repeated in 
that signification Tob. xiii. 12. Likewise Wisd. ii. 1, where 
the ungodly that profess the mortality of the soul say, that 
none was known to return from alr]^, the word can signify 
nothing but "grave." For "hell" it cannot signify in their 
speech, that believe no hell, and say plainly that their souls 
shall vanish like smoke or light air. Likewise in Baruch ii. 
it is taken for the "grave," where he saith the dead, wliich are 
m the clh}<i, shall not give honoui* to God; where it is cer- 




tain, that by that word is meant the " grave,"" seeing the souls 
of the righteous that were in Abraham's bosom did praise 
God : and moreover, lie maketh it plain that he speaketh 
of the dead bodies, when he saith, "their spirit is taken out 
of their bowels." 



FuLKE, ' 


Martin. And for the Latin woi'd, it is the like case for all the world; 
and if a man will ask but his child that cometh from the grammar, 
what is infemus, he Avill say " hell," and not " grave :" what is Latin 
for "grave"? he will answer, sepulchrnm, or monumentum; but never 
infemus, unless one of these Calvinistical translators taught him so, to 
deceive his father. 

Fulke. I hope they that be wise will believe St Augustine 
rather than you, that the word inferi, which is the same 
that infemus, hath diverse and manifold understandings in 
the scripture, as I have declared before, sect. 21. But 
with the Latin word infemus we have httle to do, which 
translate not out of Latin, but out of Hebrew or Greek. 


• If they ob- 
ject unto us 
some Catho- 
lics, that 
translate it 
as they do : it 
is a fault in 
them also, 
but so far less 
than in the 
as chance 
medley is in 
respect of 
wilful mur- 

See their mar- 
ginal annot. 
Jonap ii. 2. 
Bib. 1577. 

Martin. Now then, to draw to a conclusion of this their corruption 
also in their English translation : whereas the Hebrew and Greek and 
Latin words do most properly and usually signify "hell;" and both 
Greek and Latin interpreters precisely in every place use for the He- 
brew word that one Greek word, and that one Latin word, which by 
all custom of speaking and writing signify " hell ;"* it had been the 
part of sincere and time-meaning translators, to have translated it also 
in English always by the word " hell ;" and afterward to have disputed 
of the meaning thereof, whether and when it is to be taken for " hell," 
or " grave," or " lake," or " death," or any such thing. As in one 
place they have done it very exactly and indifferently, namely when 
Jonas saith, chap, ii. 2, out of the whale's belly, " Out of the belly of 
hell cried I, and thou heardest my voiced" So all translate it, and well, 
whatsoever it signify in this place. They think that "hell" here sig- 
nifieth nothing else but the whale's belly, and the affliction of Jonas; 
and so the word may signify by a metaphorical speech, as when we say 
in English, " It is a hell to live thus ;" and therefore'"' no doubt they did 
here translate it so, to insinuate that in other places it might as well 
signify " grave," as here the " whale's belly." 

Fulke, Fulke. Your conclusion is as good as your premises: 

because the Greek and Latin interpreters had before us 
translated amiss, which gave occasion to divers errors, there- 
fore we also, knowing the true signification of the word, 

£' Genevan translation, 1560.] 


must have followed them in wrong and doubtful transla- 
tion, and afterward debated the meaning of the several places. 
But in the margin you tell us, that such catholics as have 
translated the word sheol for a "grave," have also done amiss. 
Pardon us, M. Martin ; we take you for no such learned 
Hebrician, that you should control Pagninus, Isidorus Clarius, 
and all other Hebricians of this time upon such slender 
sleeveless reasons as you have brought hitherto. And you 
shew an intolerable proud stomach, that being a man so 
little seen in the Hebrew tongue (as you shew yourself to 
be), you should condemn such grave and learned persons 
of your own side, of rashness or ignorance. For you 
make them in the case of chance medley, that have trans- 
lated sheol a "grave." Think you, the deputies of the council 
of Trent had no more discretion in perusing Isidorus Clarius* 
correction of the bible, than to suffer him to change life and 
safety into chance medley and manslaughter ? You may in 
time to come, if you apply yom^ study, prove learned in 
that language, wherein as yet you are but a smatterer, not 
worthy to be heard against so many, so learned, so famous 
professors of the Hebrew tongue, Jews and Christians, pro- 
testants and papists, authors of grammars, dictionaries, and 
translations. But in the second of Jonas it pleaseth you 
well that our Geneva bible translateth this word "hell," " out 
of the belly of hell," &c.; but you hke not that they should 
interpret it a metaphorical hell, or the extremity of affliction 
whereinto the prophet Avas brought : where you make it 
no doubt what they would insinuate, you shew yourself 
more bold to affirm, than ready or able to prove. 

Martin. But then they should have translated it also " hell " in IMahtin, 
other places, as they did in this, and afterward have interpreted it 
"grave" in their commentaries; and not presumptuously to straiten and 
limit the word of the Holy Ghost to their private sense and interpreta- 
tion, and to prejudice the ancient and learned holy fathers, which look 
far more deeply and spiritually into this prophecy, than to Jonas or 
the whale ; our Saviour himself also applying it to his o^^^l person, and Matt. xii. 
to his being in the heart of the earth three days and three nights. And 
therefore*^ St Jerome saith : " This belly of hell, according to the story, Comment, in 

P Ventrem autem inferi alvura ceti intelligamus, quae tantfe fuit 
magnitudinis, ut instar obtineret inferni. Sed melius ad personam 
Christi referri potest, qui sub nomine David cantat in psalmo: Non 


is the whale's belly ; but it may much better be referred to the person 
Psai. XXV. of Christ, which, under the name of David, singeth in the psalm, ' Thou 
Psai. ixxxvii. shalt not leave my soul in hell,' who was in hell alive, and free among 
the dead." And that which our Saviour saith, " The Son of man shall 
be in the heart of the earth," he doth interpret of his soul in hell. " For 
as the heart is in the midst of the body, so is hell said to be in the midst 
of the earth." 

FuLKE, Fulke. They have in other places translated it according 

^'^' to the propriety of the word; and if in this place they had 

done so likewise, I see not what fault they had committed. 
Certain it is that the whale's belly did rather resemble a 
grave, wherein Jonas seemed to be buried, than hell, the 
receptacle of separated souls. It is the office of a trans- 
lator not so much to regard what other have written 
upon the place he translateth, be they ancient, be they 
godly, be they learned, as what sense the interpretation 
of the words will best bear. AVithout prejudice therefore 
of any man's credit, the truth in tliis case must be sought 

That you report out of Jerome upon this place, sheweth 
that both the Hebrew word sheol, and the Latin in/emus, 
are not proper and peculiar for " hell," as in other places 
you tell us. That St Jerome mterpreteth the saying of 
Christ, Matt. xii. 40, of his being "in the heart of the earth,'* 
to be meant of his being in hell, which is said to be in 
the middle of the earth, it is confuted by the words of 
our Saviour Christ, who saith, that he shall be there 
" three days and three nights," that is, all the time of his 
death; wliich is true of his body in the grave, but not of 
his soul in hell : for both he said he would be that day 
in paradise, and you yourselves hold that he made no tarri- 
ance in hell. Beside that it is a fantastical opinion to limit 
hell into the midst of the earth, which is rather a place 
without the sensible world, than any dungeon within the 

derelinques animam meam in inferno, nee dahis sanctum timm videre 
corruptionem. Qui fuit in inferno vivens, inter mortuos liber. * * * • 
Porro per cor maris significatur infcrnus, pro quo in evangelio legimus. 
In corde terrce. Quomodo autcra cor animalis in medio est ; ita infernus 
in medio terrae esse perhibetur. Comment. Hieronymi in Jonse c. ii. 
Opera, Vol. iv. pp. 1481, 1482.] 


Martin. Thus tlien presupposing, as we must, that Jonas speaketh IMaktin, 
in the person of our Saviour Christ, the principal sense is not of the ' 
whale's belly, but of that hell whither our Saviour Christ descended, 
and from whence he delivered the fathers of the Old Testament, him- 
self ascending into heaven, as their king and general captain, before • 
them, and opening the way of heaven unto them, as is signified in 
another prophet, and was the first that entered heaven. ^^''^- "■ '•''• 

Fulke. That which Jonas spake was first true of his own Fulke, 
person, and then of Christ, as Jonas was in this a re- '^ 
semblance of liim. But by this simiUtude of Christ remam- 
ing so many days and nights in the heart of the earth, 
as Jonas did in the whale's belly, it is manifest that he 
speaketh of his body remaining in the "grave," not of his 
soul tarrying in "hell." Wherefore the descenchng of Christ 
into limbus patrum hath no manner of hold, either of 
the saymg of Christ in the gospel. Matt, xii., or of Jonas 
in his prayer, Jon. ii. 

Martin. Against all which truths and every point thereof these Martin, 
translators are so Avatchful and wary, that where the apostle saith, ' 
Christ "began" and " dedicated" unto us the way into heaven, tliey say Heb. x. 20. 
in their English translations, with full consent, nothing else but, " he initiavit. 
prepared^" Wliy are they falser here than their masters, Calvm, Beza, 
Illyricus, who read dedicavit? Is there nothmg in the Greek word, but X'^'Pf^o"'"- 
bare "preparation"? Where be these etymologists now, that can strain M^'^""'""- 
and wTing other words to the uttermost advantage of their heresy, and 
here are content for the like advantage to dissemble the force of this 
word, which by all use and property signifieth "to make new," "tobegui 
a thing," "to be the first author," "to dedicate?" as St Augaistine might ^^ug. tract. 

"' ' . ^ ° 48. m loan. 

have taught them, and their lexicons, and the scriptures in many places. 
This translation, no doubt, is not done sincerely and indifferently of 
them, but for their own deceitful purpose, as is all the rest. When 
St Paul speaketh of " preparation" only, they know right well that he 
useth the usual word to "prepare"; as, "He hath prepared them a city:" hpIj. xi. u;. 
and wheresoever is signified " preparation" only, let them bring us one 
example where it is expressed by the other Greek word which now 
we speak of. 

n 'Hw (V€Kaivi<T€v i]jxiv 686v Trp6(T(jiaTov Kai ^axrav, Heb. X, 20. 
"Quam initiavit nobis viam novam et viventem," Vulg. "By the 
new and living way which he hath prepared for us," Tyndale, Cran- 
mer, Geneva. " Which he hath dedicated to us a new and living way," 
Rhemish. "By a new and living way which he hath consecrated for 
us," Authorised version. "Ea via quam dedicavit nobis recentem et 
vivam," Beza, 1556. 1582.] 

r I 21 







Fulke. I grant, the translations had been more proper 
and agreeable to the Greek word, to have said, " which he 
hath dedicated," or " by dedication prepared." But here is 
no fraud against any truth or error of yours. For the apostle 
speaketh not of the way by which we ascend immediately 
to heaven, but of the way by which we have free access 
to God tlirough faith, without the vails and ceremonies of 
the law, as it is manifest by his exhortation. And whereas 
you said before, that Christ ascending into heaven, * * to 
those whom he had brought out of hell, you must tell us 
then where they remained all those forty days that were 
between his resurrection and ascension; except you will make 
two ascensions of Christ into heaven, one in soul alone, the 
other in body and soid : which hath not been heard of in 
the church before. For that liis soul was first received 
into heaven or paradise immediately after his death, it 
proveth not an ascension ; seeing the same was common 
to him with other saints. Again, seeing the mystery of 
our redemption is divided into the death and resurrection 
of Christ, and that by his death we are dehvered from sins, 
by his resurrection we are justified ; if you will not allow 
his death to have purchased equal redemption to the fathers 
of the Old Testament and us, but measure the virtue thereof 
by the instance of time in wliich it was actually performed, 
you must stay your prisoners from entering into the kingdom 
of heaven at least until his resurrection : for none can enter 
into the kingdom of heaven but justified persons. Seeing 
therefore that justification dependeth upon his resurrection, 
you must either grant that it was communicated to the 
fathers m their time before his incarnation, or else you must 
stay them from entering into heaven before they were jus- 
tified by liis resurrection. The place of Michah ii. that you 
quote is nothing to the purpose of Christ's ascending. For 
there the prophet tlu'eateneth the Israehtes with the violence 
of their enemies the Chaldees, whom God himself would pros- 
per against them, to have the victory, and to drive them 
into captivity. 


Martin. But it is of more importance which followeth, and ap- 
pertaining altogether to this controversy, Heb. v. 7, your translation is 

Of the year thus, in the very English bible that now is read in your churches 



" Which in days of his flesh offered up prayers with strong crying ^^^.''"?* 
unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in descending 
that which he feared^." Is the Greek here, "In that which he feared?" dTroTJjs ev- 
You know that no grammar nor lexicon doth allow you this transla- ^"^^'"s. 
tion. But either thus, " for reverence," or as one of your own English 
bibles hath it, "because of his reverence^." 

Fulke. Your first quarrel against the truest translation Fulke, 
of that word cltto t^s evXafieia^, Heb. v., is that it saith "in 
that wliich he feared," whereas the Greek is "from fear" or "out 
of fear :" which afterward you confess, though distant in word, 
yet to be agreeable in sense. The second, that in the margin, 
our translation is against Christ's descending into hell. How 
so, I pray you ? do you, according to your translation, expound 
that word of Christ's descending into hell ? No, verily. But 
we do expound it of liis descending into hell, therefore our 
translation is to prove Clirist's descending into hell ; and 
if our exposition were not true, yet even yom' opinion of 
Christ's descent were nothing hindered thereby. You will 
say, that by our exposition we exclude his descent after 
his death : we do indeed in such sort as yom^ error teacheth 
altogether without the scripture. For if there had been an 
history of Christ's going into hell, and dehvering the patri- 
archs and others the faitliful from thence, all the evangehsts 
would not have omitted so notable a matter, and that also an 
article of our belief. 

Martin. How is it then, that in your later English bibles you Martin, 
changed your former translation from better to worse? or who taught 
you so to translate it ? Forsooth the heretic Beza, whose translation you 
follow for the most part in your later bibles, though here in sense 
rather than in word. And who taught Beza ? he saith, Calvin was the Caiv. Cateeh. 
first that ever found out this interpretation. And why ? surely for de- lib. u. c. i6. 
fence of no less blasphemy than this, that our Saviour Jesus Christ 

P Kai fla-uKovadfls aTTo t^s evXa/Se/as, Heb. V. 7. "Exauditus est 
pro sua reverentia," Vulg. " Exauditus esset ex metu," Beza. " Was 
heard for his reverence," Wiclif, Rheims. "Was also heard because 
of his godliness," Tyndale. " Was heard because of his reverence," 
Cranmer. "Was heard in that he feared," Geneva, Authorised. 
"Wliich in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers 
and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able 
to save him from death, and was heard in that which he feared," 
Edit. 1568.] 



upon the cross was liorribly afraid of damnation, that he was in the 
very sorrows and torments of the damned, and that this was his descend- 
ing into hell, and that otherwise he descended not. Let the reader 
note these new teachers upon this place, and judge to what wicked 
end this translation tendeth. 

FuLKK, Fidke. If we have in the latter reformed an error cs- 

caped m the former, what sldlleth it by whom we were 
admonished so to correct it ? But Beza, you say, "affirmeth 
that Calvin was the first that ever fomid out this inter- 
pretation." It appeareth you were never well beaten for 
lying, it is such a common fault with you. Beza, speak- 
ing of the interpreters of this age, saith that Calvin (as 
he thinketh) was the first that shewed the true and natm'al 
interpretation of this place. He saith not, the first that ever 
found it : yea, clean contrariwise he saith, Denique ut non 
dubium sit, etc} "Finally, that it should not be doubtful but 
that some of the ancient fathers also have interpreted this 
place even so, Nazianzenus^ , Cone, defil. ii., doth plainly num- 
ber TO eyXajSes, 'this fear,' among the infirmities of Christ's 
manhood." As for that which you call a blasphemy, [it] is 
a holy and comfortable true doctrine, that Christ for the 
redemption of our souls suffered the wrath of God in Ms 
soul, as those tears and that strong cry declareth, in which 
he complained, according to the sense of his humanity, that 
he was forsaken of God. 

Martin, Martin. A wonderful thing ! when all antiquity, with a general and 

full consent, hath in that place of the holy scripture read thus, "that 
Christ was heard (of his Father) for his reverence," (according as our 

John xi. 42. Saviour himself also saith in the raising of Lazarus, and signifieth in 
his long prayer, John xvii.); how a blasphemous and presumptuous 
heretic should be so malapert thus to alter it, that "he was heard in 
that wliich he feared," that is, that he was delivered from damnation 

P Denique ut non dubium sit quin hunc locum ita etiam inter- 
pretati sint nonnulH veteres, Nazianzenus diserte, concione de filio 
secunda, mter Christi hominis imbecillitates to eiXa^es numerat. See 
the long note on Heb. v. 7. Nov. Test. Beza?, 1582, pp. 349, 350.] 

P Tfjs 8e avTtjs fx^'''^'' Geapias mi to nadeiv avTov Trjv vnaKo^v 
e^ av i'nadev' r/ re Kpavyrj, km rot BcLKpva, Kal to iKeTeiKrai, kol to 
eKraKovaBrivai, Koi to evka^es, a bpafiaTovpyeiTai kol TrXtKCTai 6nvp,a- 
a-lcos virip vficov. Greg. Nazianz. Oratio. xxxvi. Opera, Vol. i. p. 580. 
Edit. 1609.] 


and the eternal pains of hell, which he was sore afraid of. To the 
maintenance of which l)las25hemy Beza will seem to force the Greek 
thus. First, saith he, evXd^eia doth not here signify reverence or piety, ^^'' "^j/s ev- 
but fear ; and such a fear which he calleth pavorem et consternationem 
animi, that is, dreadfulness and astonishment of mind; and other Uke 
words, to insinuate an exceeding horror and fear in our Saviour Christ. 
For confutation whereof, we might easily bring the common use of 
this Greek word in the holy scriptures to signify not every fear, but 
that religious fear which is in the best men joined with godliness, holi- 
ness, and devotion ; as when in the Acts they that buried St Stephen Acts viii. 
are called viri timorati, "devout men," such as feared God. Xa/Seis. " 

Fulke. How know you that all antiquity hatli so road ? Fulke, 
If we had the commentaries of many of the ancient fathers 
upon this text, we might perhaps prove unto you that they 
read otherwise. Nazianzenus, as I shewed before, among 
Christ's infirmities reckoueth tliis fear. Primasius^, although 
he cxpoundeth it of reverence, yet allegeth out of Cassio- 
dorus that the word is taken sometime for love, sometimes 
for fear. Theodoretus also interpreteth tliis place of Christ's 
fear, according to liis human nature; shewing that he feared 
death, which St Paul feared not, both to shew himself a 
man, and to have experience of all our infirmities without 
sin. But where you say that Calvin maketli him "to 
fear damnation and the eternal pains of hell," it is false. 
Calvin saith plainly, his fear came not of distrust, but of 
the sense of his human nature, forbearing the judgment of 
God, wliich without vehement endeavom* could not be over- 
come. Therefore was the astonishment, the tears, the strong 

[^ Pro sua reverentia. Hoc est, propter voluntariam obedientiam 
et perfectissimam caritatem. Nonne cum lacrymis preces fundebat, 
dicens, Tristis est anima mea usque ad mortem ; et. Pater, transfer cali- 
cem istum a me ? Et quia voluntarie fuit obediens Deo Patri usque ad 
mortem, exaudivit ilium, die tertia resuscitando ; juxta quod Psalmista 
dicit: Non dabis Sanctum tuum videre corruptionem. Dicitur autem 
fudisse preces supplicationesque, non timore mortis, quam sponte susci- 
piebat, sed potius causa nostra? salutis voluntatem paterna^ dispensa- 
tionis prajposuit voluntati caniis susb ; ut veram ostenderet in seipso 
naturam humanitatis nostra?. Notandum autem, quia reverentia secun- 
dum sententiam Cassiodori accipitur aliquando pro amore, aliquando 
pro timore : liic vero, pro summa ponitur caritate, qua Filius Dei nos 
dilexit, et pro summa obcdientia, qua fuit obediens Patri usque ad 
mortem. Primasius Coram, in Epist. ad Hebrteos, pp. 207, 208. Edit. 
Paris. 1543, 12mo.] 




cry, the drops of blood, the angel needful to comfort him, 
the last extreme conflict, in which he cried, " My God, my 
God, why hast thou forsaken me ?" As for the signification of 
the Greek word ev\a/3eta, although it be so often taken for 
piety and rehgion, yet it is also taken for fear: as Acts xxiii.' 
where St Luke saith the tribune was greatly afraid least 
Paul should have been rent in pieces between the Phari- 
sees and Sadducees, he useth tliis word evXafirjOek for being 
afraid; which was of no piety or rehgious fear in him, that 
was a pagan, but a natural and civil fear, least a prisoner, 
being a Poman, of whom he had charge, should be violently 
murdered amongst them. 


Annot. in 
Luc. ii. 25. 



Martin. But we need not go far; for Beza will help us himself, 
who telleth us in another place the very same. His words be these : 
evXa^eia significat non quemvis timorem, sed cum reverentia potius quam 
cum animi trepidatione conjuncium; Latini^ religionem vacant. That is, 
"evXa^fiu doth not signify every fear, but that which is joined with 
reverence rather than with astonishment of mind ; the Latins do call it 
rehgion, or rehgious fear." If this be the true signification of fvKa^fia, 
as Beza himself confesseth, why doth he not so translate it in the afore- 
said place to the Hebrews ? Why forsaketh he the old approved Latin 
translation, and general consent of aU ancient interjireters, and trans- 
lateth it " that fear or astonishment of mind," which he saith the word 
doth not signify? 

Fulke. You have great leisure thus to trifle, or rather 
intolerable malice thus to cavil. Beza in the place by you 
cited speaketh of the word ei)Xa/3eta, when it is taken for 
religion; for then it is rather joined with reverence, than with 


Martin. And mark, that in his aforesaid annotation upon St Luke, 
he telleth not a pecuHar signification of the Greek word in that place, 
as though in some other places it might have another signification; but 
he telleth generally what the very nature of the Greek word is, that 
is, that it signifieth not every fear, but a fear joined with reverence. 

Q^ IIoXX^s Se yfvofi€VT)s (TTacrecos, evka^7]de\s 6 )(^iKiapxos firj diacnracrdfj 
6 IlavXos VTT avTcJv, Act. xxiii. 10. "Et cum magna dissensio facta 
esset, timens tribunus ne discerperetur Paulus ab ipsis," Vulg.] 

[^ Martin has omitted, after " Latini," " ni fallor" in tliis quotation ; 
and at the commencement of it these words also : "ReUgiosus, evXa^ijs. 
Vulgata barbare timoratus, significat enim evXa^eia non quemvis," &c.] 


And he said truly ; and they shall hardly give an instance where it 
signifieth that fear of astonishment, which both he and they translate 
in the aforesaid place of St Paul. Such a force hath heresy to lead a 
man^ even contrary to his own knowledge, to falsify God's holy word ! 

FulJce. Any reasonable man reading the note upon the Fulke, 
word evXa^ri^, "rehgious," used by St Luke of Simeon, will 
imderstand Beza to speak of the signiiication of that word 
as it is taken in that place; for he speaketh against the bar- 
barous word timoratus, used by the vulgar interpreter, which 
signifieth, if it have any signification, one made afraid, rather 
than fearing God with love and reverence. But Avhere you 
say, we "shall hardly give an instance where the word sig- 
nifieth that fear of astonishment, wliich they translate," if you 
would have taken pains to read Beza''s annotations yourself 
upon this text in question, you should have fomid, that he 
bringeth many instances out of Aristotle, Sophocles, Plutarch^, 
JS^azianzen, and St. Luke, Acts xxiii. If you had remembered 
what St Mark writeth of our Saviour Christ, Mark xiv. 33*, 
it should not have been so strange a matter unto you, to 
hear that our Saviour Christ, with great astonishment and 
terror of mind, was afraid of death, where he useth the 
words eKOafxI^eiadai, and alr}noveiv : wliich was not for 
bodily pain, or bodily death, (which not only thousands of 
holy martyrs have joyfully embraced, but infinite wicked 
persons have contemned,) but for the feeling of God's -wrath, 
which was infinitely more heavy upon his soul than any tor- 
ments were upon his body. 

Martin. Yea, Beza saith further to this purpose, much more against Martin, 
his skill in the Greek tongue, if he had any at all, that ano the pre- ' 
position cannot hear this sense, "for which," or "in respect whereof;" 
and therefore he translateth the Greek into Latin thus, exauditus est 
ex metu, " he was heard from fear," not " for fear," or, " for his reve- 
rence." And because "from fear" is a hard speech and dark, that 

P Pericles, inquit Plutarchus, Trepl tov \6yov rjv eiXa^rjs, timide 
ad dicendum accedebat, quod de se quoque Cicero testatur. fvXnliovfiai 
TTfo-flv, inquit rile apud Sophoclem, timeo ne cadam. Sed et Aristoteles 
alicubi in Rhetoricis roi/s detXovs Koi rovs eiXu^e'is conjungit. Act. 
xxiii. 10; Luc. xxii. 43. Bezae, Nov. Test. Edit. 1556.] 

[^■* Kai ijp^uTo eKdafijiela-dai Koi aBTjfjLovelv. "Et caepit pavere et 
taedere," Vulg. " And he began to fear and to be heavy," Mark xiv. 33. 


seemeth to be the cause why our English translators say, " m that which 
he feared," far from Beza in word, but agreeably in sense. 

FuLKE, Fulke. When Beza hath shewed his skill in the Greek 

tongue, not only in his translation and amiotations, but also 
in divers Greek epigrams, which ho hath set forth ; who 
but one stark mad with mahce, and bUnd with conceit of 
liis own slender skill, would doubt whether Beza " had any 
skill at all in the Greek tongue?" As for that he saith of 
the signification of the preposition aTro, he speaketh in re- 
spect of the property of the Greek tongue ; for yet you 
bring no examples, but Hebraisms out of the scripture, for 
that signification of the preposition. 


Flac. Ulyric. 

Martin, Martin. But for this matter we send them to Flaccus Illyricus, 

a captain Lutheran, who disputeth this very point against the Cal- 
vinists, and teacheth them that nothing is more common than that 
OTTO Ti]? signification of ano. For proof whereof we also refer them to these 
^^^6^} places of the "holy scripture : Matt, xiii., Luc. xxii. and xxiv.. Acts xii., 
Xvirni. Psal. Ixxxvii., and [2] Machab. v. 21, where anb with a genitive, and Sta 
a-jTojaXai.- ^,|^j^ ^^ accusative, siffnify all one, which Beza denieth. Gentle reader, 
d-rro -7-77? bear with these tedious grammatications, fitter to be handled in Latin, 
vTrep7](i>a- jj^j. necessary in this case alsu; good for them that understand, and for 
Old Tou fie- the rest, an occasion to ask of them that have skill in the Greek tongue, 
TeMpia-fiov whether we accuse our adversaries justly, or no, of false translating the 
Sias. holy scriptures. 

Fulke, Fulke. And we, by the same authority, send you to 

Beza's answer, in his last edition of liis annotations'. And 
yet the reader must know, that Beza did not simply deny 
that the preposition might have such sense : but he said, 
Non facile mihi persuaserim, I cannot easily persuade my- 
self, that any example can be brought wherein aTro is so 
used. And in all these examples that you have brought, 
it significth rather prce, which is viro, than propter, hia, as 
your vulgar translator observeth the difference, 2 Mac. v. 21, 

\} Ex metu, ano ttjs evXajBeias. Ergo quod ad totum ipsum dicendi 
genus attinet, si pro rererentia, ut omnibus adhuc placuisse video ; vel 
pro pietate, quod Erasmus annotavit, interpreteris ; non aliud declarabit 
pro quam propter vol secundum, vel aliquid denique cjusmodi quod 
sigiiificet quo respcctu sit cxaucUtus. Atqui non facile mihi persuaserim 
proferri posse uUum cxcmplum in quo dno ita usurpetur. Beza", Nov. 
Test. 1556, p. 219. Vide chap. i. numb. 29.] 


translating ^'irce superhia, and j)ropter elationem mentis. But 
Beza rcquireth an example of arro taken for ^la, virep or 
Kara, that may answer to the vulgar Latin, pro reverentia. 
For who would translate in St Matthew, xiii. airo -^^apa^, 
pro gaudio, propter gaudium, or secundum gaudium, or airo 
T>7s XvTrrj^f 2^"^^ dolors, and so of the rest ? But of these let 
Beza liimself give account. As for "these tedious grammati- 
cations," which you confess to have been "fitter to be handled 
in Latin," it seemeth you uttered in Enghsh, for that of 
many ignorant you might be thought to bring some great 
learning out of the Hebrew and Greek tongues against us; 
whereas the learned, if you had written in Latin, of other 
nations, as well as ours, might have been witnesses of your 
fond trifling and quarrclUng against our translations. As for 
the necessary cause you pretend, that the unlearned may 
ask them that have skill in Greek, [it] is very ridiculous. 
For neither can they have at hand always such as be able to 
resolve them; neither if they be of your faction, will they 
ask any indifferent man's judgment, but only such as will 
avouch before the ignorant that all which you write is good 
and perfect. 

Martin. And we beseech them to give us a good reason, why they, pi"o- Martin, 
fessing to follow precisely the Greek, do not observe truly the Greek points ■*■*• 
in such place as concerneth this present controversy. For the place in 
the Apocalypse, which they allege of our Saviour Christ's sufFermg 
from the beginning, (thereby to infer that the just men of the Old Testa- 
ment might enter heaven then, as well as after his real and actual 
death,) according to the Greek pouits saith thus: "All that dwell upon 
the earth shall worship him (the beast), whose names have not been 
written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the beginning of the 
world." Where it is evident that the Greek text saith not, "the Lamb 
slain from the beginning;" but that the names of those antichristian 
idolaters were not written in God's eternal book of predestination from 
the beginning; as it is also most plain without all ambiguity in the xviith 
chap. ver. 8. If in a place of no controversy they had not been curious 
in points of the Greek, they might have great reason sometime to alter 
the same. 

Fidke. How fain would you obscure the light of that Fulke, 
excellent testimony, even contrary to your own vulgar Latin 
translation, that you might not have such a faithful witness 
against your limbus patrum ! You require a reason, why 


Ave keep not the Greek points, Apoc. xiii,' I answer, we 
keep those points which the most ancient written copies have, 
which the Coinplutensis editio hath, and which the best 
Greek prints now have. If you would know a reason why 
we follow not them that point otherwise, I answer you, 
the composition of the words is against that pointing. For 
except St John had meant that the Lamb was slain from the 
beginning of the world, he would not have placed those 
words, "from the beginning of the Avorld," next to those 
words "the Lamb which is slain," but next the word "written." 
And therefore Aretus, that could not understand how the 
Lamb was "slain from the beginning of the world," is forced 
to imagine hyperhaton in this text, where none needeth, the 
sense being good and plain without it, as the words do lie : 
" Wliose names are not written in the book of life of the 
Lamb that hath been slain since the beginning of the Avorld." 
And although it be true that "the names of the antichristian 
idolaters were not written in God's eternal book of predesti- 
nation from the beginning," as it is said, Apoc. xiii. 8 ; yet 
is that no reason why this also should not be true, that the 
Lamb was slain since the beginning of the world, seeing with- 
out violence you cannot distract airo KaTa(3o\t}^ Koaiuov 
from "the Lamb slain," whom it doth immediately follow. 

Martin, Martin. But if in points of conti'oversy between us, they will say, 

^^' divers pointing is of no importance, they know the contrary by the 

example of ancient heretics, which used this mean also to serve their 
false heretical purpose. If they say, our vulgar Latin sense pointeth it 
so, let them profess before God and their conscience that they do it of 
reverence to the said ancient Latin text, or because it is indiiFerent, and 
not for any other cause ; and for this one place we will admit their answer. 

FuLKE, Fulke. We say that wrong pointing may greatly alter 

the sense; but good composition and placing of words in a 
sentence is a good rule to direct pointing, where it is either 
lacking, or falsely signed. We refuse not the testimony of 
the vulgar Latin, where it agreeth with the truth of the 
Greek or Hebrew; yea, before God and our consciences we 
reverence it as a monument of some antiqmty, from Avhich 

P Kat Tvpoa-Kwrjcrovaiv avTov iravres ol KaroiKovvTfs (Tt\ t^j yrjs, 
a>v oil yeypanTai to ovofxa ev rc3 jSi^Xi'w tjjs fw^y tov apvlov rod eV^ay- 
fifvov (iTTo KaralioXiis Koafxov, Apoc. xiii. 8.~\ 


we neither do, nor are willing to dissent, except the same 
dissent from the original text. Otherwise the truth of this 
assertion, that Christ was "slain from the beginning of the 
world," hath not only testimony of the ancient fathers, but 
also may be confirmed out of the scripture. For by the 
obedience of Christ, St Paul, Rom. v. teacheth that "many 
are justified," meaning all the elect of God; who, except 
Christ's death had been effectual to them, before he suffered 
actually on the cross, must have gone, not into limbo patrum, 
but into hell diabolorum, which is the place appointed for 
all them that are not "justified freely by the grace of God, 
through the redemption of Christ Jesus, whom God before 
hath set forth to be a propitiatory in his blood," Rom. iii. 
24, &c. 

The title of this chapter threateneth a discovery of 
heretical translations against purgatory especially ; but in 
the whole discourse thereof, which is a shameful long one, 
containing forty-five sections, there is not one place noted 
against purgatory. Amphora ccepit institui: currente rota 
cur urceus exit ? 



Heretical Translation concerning Justification. 

Martin, 1. Martin. About the article of justification, as it hath many branches, 
and their errors therem be manifold, so arc their English translations 
accorduigly many ways false and heretical. First, against justification 
by good works and by keeping the commandments, they suppress the 
very name of "justification" in all such places where the word signifieth 
the commandments or the law of God, which is both in the Old and New 
Testament most common and usual, namely in the books of Moses, in the 
psalm cxviii.^, that beginneth thus, Beati immaculati, in the psalm cxlvii. 
19^ 1 Mach. i. 51"^ and ii. 21*, Luke i. 6^ Rom. ii. 26''. In all which 
Tci oiKuiw- places, and the like, where the Greek signifieth "justices" and "jus- 
fiaTu. tifications" most exactly, according as our vnlgar Latin translateth 

p MaxapLui a/xo/xoi eV 68a. " Beati immaculati in via," Psal. cxix. 
1. " Blessed are all those that be undefiled in the way of the Lord," 
Cranmer's bible, 1562. " Undefiled in the way," Bishops' bible, 1584. 
Authorised version, 1611. "Upright in their way," Genevan version, 
1560. "OfpiKov KUTevSvvdfirjcrav a'l 68ol fiov, roii (pvXd^aadai ra 8iKai- 
Mfiard crov, Psal. cxix. 5. " Utinam dirigantur vise meae ad custodiendas 
justificationes tuas,'' Vulg. " Keep thy statutes," Cranmer's bible, 1562, 
Geneva, 1560, Bishops' bible, 1584. Authorised version.] *- 

r^ 'ATra-yye'XXcoi' rov Xoyov avTov rw loKw/i, BiKaKOfiara kol KpifxaTa 
avToii Tw 'lo-paiyX. Psal. cxlvii. 19. " Qui ammnciat verbiim suum Ja- 
cob, justitias et judicia sua Israel," Vulg. "His statutes and ordi- 
nances unto Israel," Cranmer, 1562, Bishops' bible, 1584. "His statutes 
and his judgments unto Israel," Geneva, 1560. Authorised version 1611.] 

P Kal oXXa^nt -rravTii to biKaicofxara, 1 Macc. i. 49. Edit. Grabbe. 
"Change all the Qioly, Cranmer's bible, 1562] ordinances of God," 
Bishops' bible, 1584. "Change all the ordinances," Geneva, 1560, v. 51. 
Authorised version, 1611, v. 49.] 

C KaTaXnrelv vofjLov Kcil St/caiaj/xara, 1 Macc. ii. 21 . " Forsake the 
law and ordinances," Bishops' bible, 1584, Cranmer's Bible, 1562, 
Geneva, 1560, Authorised, 1611.] 

p Ilopfvofievoi iv irdcrais rals ivroXais Kai diKaioipacn rov Kvpiov 
ajiepnTToi, Luc. i. 6. " Incedentes in omnibus mandatis et justificatio- 
nibus Domini sine querela," Vulg. "Going in all the maundemcntis 
and justifyings of the Lord without plaint," Wiclif, 1380. "Laws and 
ordinances," Tyndale, Cranmer. "Commandments and ordinances," 
Geneva, Bishops' bible. Authorised version. "Commandments and 
justifications," Rhemish.] 

P iav ovv r'l ciKpofivaria ra SiKcnoipaTa tov popov (puXacrai/, Rom. 
ii. 26. " Si igitur prseputium justitias legis custodiat," Vulg. " If the 


justitias et justificationes ; there the English translations say jointly and 
with one consent, " ordinances," or, " statutes." For example, Rom. ii., 
" If the uncircumcision keep the ordinances of the law, shall it not be ^iKaiwfia- 
counted for circumcision V And Luke i. 6, " They were both righteous T"* 
before God, walking in aU the commandments and ordinances of the kuI oikuiw. 
Lord blameless." WTiy translate you it "ordinances," and avoid the '^"°''* 
term "justifications?" is it because you would follow the Greek? I 
beseech you, is not SUmos '- just," ^iKaiovcrdai. "to be justified," fit/catw/xara 
"justifications," or "justices?" In the Old Testament you might perhaps 
pretend that you follow the Hebrew word, and therefore there you Q"<rsn 
translate " statutes," or " ordmances." But even there also are not the 
seventy Greek interpreters sufficient to teach you the signification of the 
Hebrew word; who always intei-pret it diKaiconaTa, in English "justifica- 
tions ? " 

Fulke. These matters were di'iven so thin in the first Fulke, 1. 
chapter, that you shall sooner press out blood than any more 
probable matter. For the Old Testament, which we translate 
out of the Hebrew, you yourself do set forth our answer, that 
we give the English of ckukim, when we say, " ordinances" D''pn 
or " statutes," and not of the Greek word SiKaiwjuaTa, which 
of the Septuaginta is used in the same sense for " precepts" 
and " commandments," as you yourself confess, cap. i. sect. 
50, that very often in the scripture it signifieth " command- 
ments." But the Septuaginta, you say, "are sufficient to 
teach us the interpretation of the Hel^rew word, who always 
interpret it ^iKaiwiuara." If they had always interpreted 
it so, it is not sufficient to teach us ; for then there needed 
none other translation : but according to theirs then must 
you depart from yom' vulgar translation, which in many 
things departeth from them. But where you say they 
always interpret the Hebrew word chukim by SiKaiwjuaTa, 
it is false. For Exod. xviii. 20^, they translate it -TrpoaToiy- □''pn 
[xaTa, prcecepta, which yoiu' vulgar translation calleth cere- 
monias, "ceremonies;" as it doeth also Gen. xxvi. 5, where 
the Septuaginta translate SiKaitofiaTa ; by which you see 

uncircumcised keep the right things contained in the law," Tyndale, 
1534, Cranmer, 1539, Geneva, 1557. "If the uncircumcision keep the 
ordinances of the law," Bishops' bible, 1584, " Therefore if the uncir- 
cumcision keep the righteousness of the law," Authorised version, 1611. 
" If then the prepuce keep the justice of the law," Rhemish version, 1582.] 
Q^ Kai 8iafiapTvpi] avrols ra TrpoardyfiaTa tov Qeov, Exod. xviii. 20. 
"Ostendasque populo ceremonias," Vulg. 'Kal i(})v\a^e ra npoa-Tay- 
fiard pov, Gen. xxvi. 5. " Et custodicrit prsecepta et mandata mea," Vulg.] 


that "justification" is not always the English for the Greek 
word which the Septuaginta do use. Also Numb. ix. 3, for 

^"^P^ chukoth they translate vofxov, " the law," which the vulgar 
Latin calleth ceremonias, " ceremonies ;" and for the Hebrew 
D''tp2tt^D word 7nisphatiin they give avyKpiaiv, " comparation," the 
vulgar Latin "justification;" by which you may see how your 
translator useth even the Latin word, that you make so much 
ado about. Liliewise in the fourteenth verse of the same 

■Hj^n chapter, the Septuagint translate chukath, twice together, 
vo/uov; and that which the vulgar Latin calleth "justification 
of the passover," the Greek caUeth avvrd^iv, " the order of 

Wptl the paschal." Deut. iv., your vulgar Latin turneth chukim 
thrice ceremonias, " ceremonies ;" and Deut. v. twice, and 
Deut. vi. twice, Deut. vii. once; and so commonly almost in 
every chapter. But in the chap. xi. 32, the Greek for 

D''pn chukim hath TrpoardynaTa, where as in the beginning of 
the chapter he had SiKaiwfxaTa ; the Latin in both ceremonias, 
" ceremonies." By which it is evident, what the Greeks 
. and Latins meant by those words, chap. xx. for this Hebrew 
word; and in another the Greek hath nothing but evroXd^, 
" commandments." So hath he, 1 Reg. ii. 3, for Dpn, evro- 

WpH Xas, " commandments." Also 1 Reg. viii. 58, for chukim 
waf^t^n ^^® ^^^^ TrpoardyiuLaTa, and for misphatim he hath ^iKaiw- 
-' ■ ' fxaTUf as he hath it twice in the next verse, where Salomon 
prayeth that God will defend his cause, and the cause of 
his people Israel, as the cause shall require. More examples 
might I bring, but for tediousness, to convince the bold 
rashness of this quarreller; but these may suffice all indif- 
ferent readers, and answer sufficiently for us. Within the New 
Testament, we translate SiKaiwfxaTa " ordinances," or " sta- 
tutes," seeing it is proved both by the Septuagmta, which 
calleth the same Hebrew word not only " justifications," but 
often "commandments," "statutes," "precepts," "judg- 
ments;" and the vulgar Latin interpreter, which commonly 
calleth it " ceremonies" or "precepts." 

Martin, 2. Martin. But be it that you may control them in the Hebrew, 
which none but fools will grant unto you : in the New Testament what 
pretence have you ? do you there also translate the Hebrew word, or 
rather the Greek ? The Greek undoubtedly you should translate. What 
reason then can you have why you do not ? None other surely, than that 
which Beza giveth for himself, saying, that he rejected the word " justi- 


fication," (notwithstanding it expressed the Greek, word for word, not- 
withstanding the seventy Greek interpreters used it to signify "the 
whole law," and in Latin it be commonly translated justijicationes,) ■^'^'""^- in 
notwithstanding all this, "for this only cause (saith he) did I reject it, to 
avoid the cavillations that might be made by this word against justification 
by faith." As if he should say. This word truly translated, according to 
the Greek, might minister great occasion to prove by so many places of 
scripture, that man's justification is not by faith only, but also by keeping 
the law, and observing the commandments, which therefore are called, 
according to the Greek and Latin, "justifications," because they concur 
to justification, and make a man just, as by St Luke's words also is well 
signified, which have this allusion, that they were both just, because they 
walked in all the justifications of our Lord. 'VVTiich they of purpose 
suppress by other words. 

Fulke. None but fools, considering what I have brought Fulke, 2. 
of the usage of that word, liKaiw/jLara, will judge that it 
signifieth only " justifications ;" and all wise men may see 
that we have good warrant to translate it otherwise in the 
Greek testament, where it must needs have another signi- 
fication. The concurrence of works with faith to justification 
before God, which the apostle doth exclude, Rom. iii., we 
may not admit. But justification by works, as St James 
teacheth, we do acknowledge. I hope you will not say that 
your Latin translator, against justification by works, trans- 
lated the word so often " ceremonies," or that ceremonies 
of the law do concur to justification by faith. The command- 
ments indeed are called "justifications," because the works 
of the law, if a man keep it wholly, are able to justify. 
Not that every ceremony or observation of any piece of the 
law is a justification, or maketh a man just ; wliich you may 
better say, upon the etymology of the word, than that every 
particular observation of the law, or good work, doth concur 
with faith unto justification. 

Martin. And hereof also it riseth, that when he cannot possibly Martin, 3. 
avoid the word in his translation, (as Apoc. xix. 8^, bissinum enim to. SiKaioi- 
justificationes sunt sanctorum, "The silk is the justifications of saints,") Z'"'^"- 
there he helpeth the matter with this commentary, " That justifications Bezae Annot. 

in Apoc. xix, 

Pi To yap ^vijaivov ra SiKaiconara eort rav ayia>v, Apoc. xix. 8. 
"Justifying of saints," Wiclif. "Righteousness of saints," Tyndale's, 
Cranmer's, Genevan, Bishops', Authorised version. "Justifications of 
saints," Rhemish, 1582.] 


are those good works which be the testimonies of a lively faith." But 
our English translators have another way to avoid the word even in their 
translation. For they say here, " the righteousness of saints ;" because 
they could not say, " ordinances of saints ;" and they would not say, 
"justifications of saints;" knowing very well by Beza's own commen- 
tary, that this word includeth the good works of saints ; which works if 
they should in translating call their "justifications," it would go sore 
against justification by only faith. Therefore do they translate instead 
thereof " ordinances," and " statutes," where they can, which are terms 
furthest off from justification; and where they cannot, there they say, 
" righteousness," making it also the plural number, whereas the more 
proper Greek word for righteousness is fv6vTT]i, Dan. vi. 22, which 
there some of them translate "unguiltiness," because they will not 
translate exactly, if you would hire them. 

FuLKE, 3^ Fulke. When SiKuiwixaTa, Apoc. xix., are translated 
justificationes, they signify "just works," as I have already 
proved the signification of the word to bear ; beside that it 
is so used by Aristotle in his Ethics^, who of justification 
before God, whereof we speak, understood never a whit. 
Therefore, if instead of "righteousness," which is the singular 
number, it were translated " righteous or just works," it 
were not amiss, in mine opinion. Although by "righteous- 
ness" in that place, is nothing meant but "good or righteous 
works," as Beza's note doth toll you. 

MAnTiN,4. Martin. And therefore as for "justice," and "justifications," they 

yeari577r Say " righteousness," so for "just" they translate "righteous;" and by 

most approv- ^.j^jg means, " Joseph was a righteous man^," rather than a just man ; 

Luke i' 6^ and Zacharias and Elisabeth "were both righteous before God'V rather 

than just; because when a man is called just, it soundeth that he is so 

in deed, and not by imputation only ; as a wise man is understood to be 

wise in deed, and not only so imputed. Therefore do they more gladly 

and more often say "righteous men^" rather than "just men ;" and when 

they do say "just men," (as sometime they do, least they might seem wilful 

P V^akeiTai 8e to koivov fiaXkov SiKaioTvpayrjfia' BiKaicofia 8e, to iirav- 
opdafia dbiKijuaTos. Arist. Ethic, v.] 

[2 'iwo-ryc^ — ^LKaios a>v. Matt. i. 19. " Joseph cum csset Justus," 
Vulg. " Josejih being a perfect man," Tyndale, 1534. " Joseph was a 
righteous man," Cranmer, 1539, Bishops', 1584. "Joseph was a just 
man," Genevan, Rhemish, Authorised versions.] 

P -qa-av Se diKaioi afKpoTepoi ivaivLOv tov Qeov, Luc. i. G. " Erant 
autem justi ambo," Vulg. " Both were perfect before God," Tyndale, 
Geneva. " They were both righteous before God," Bishops' bible, 1584, 
Cranmer, Authorised. " Both just before God," Rheims.] 



inexcusably,) there they understand " just"by imputation, and not in deed ; 
as is to be seen in Beza's annotations upon the Epistle to the Romans. 
Note also, that they put the word "just," when faith is joined withal, as 
Rom. i.,* " The just shall live by faith," to signify that justification is by 
faith. But if works be joined withal, and keeping the commandments, 
as in the place alleged, Luke i., there they say "righteous," to sup- 
press justification by works. 

Fulke. This is a marvellous difference, never heard of Fulke, 4. 
(I think) in the Enghsh tongue before, between "just" and 
"righteous," "justice" and "righteousness." I am sure 
there is none of our translators, no, nor any professor of 
justification by faith only, that esteem eth it the worth of 
one hair, whether you say in any place of scripture " just" 
or " righteous," " justice" or " righteousness ;" and there- 
fore freely they have used sometimes the one word, sometimes 
the other. Therefore it is a monstrous falsehood, that you 
feign them to observe this cUstinction, that they join "just" with 
"faith," and "righteous" with "works." Do they not translate, 
Rom. ii. 13, "the hearers of the law arc not righteous before 
God, but the doers of the law shall be justified'^"? Have you 
not again, "the righteousness of Grod is made manifest without 
the law, &c., by the faith of Jesus Christ"? And where 
you read, " the just shall hve by faith," have you not imme- 
diately, " the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to 
faith, as it is written, The just shall hve by faith"? Who 
then but the devil, which hath his name of slandering, would 
here invent a distmction of "just" and "righteous"? 

Martin. And certain it is, if there were no sinister meaning, they Martin, 5. 
would in no place avoid to say "just," "justice," "justification," where ti7? oiK-aio- 
both the Greek and Latin are so, word for word : as for example, 2 Tim. T^/,''^' 
iv. 8®. in all their bibles, " Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown h-ptTii's 
of righteousness, which the Lord the righteous Judge shall give me at "•^"^""^'^'j 

[■* 'O 5e hiKMos fK TTiaTeoos (rja-eTai, Rom. i. 17. "Justus autem 
ex fide vivit," Vulg. "The just shall live by faith," Tyndale's, Cran- 
mers, Geneva, Bishops', Authorised versions. " The just liveth," &c., 

^ aXX oi 7T-oiT]Ta\ tov vojjlov SiKaicodtjcrovTai, Rom. ii. 13. "But the 
doers of the law shall be justified," Rhemish, and all the versions.] 

^^ Xoinov, arroKeLrai fioi 6 r^s hiKaiocrvvrfs crrecpavos, ov anoScoaei 
fioi 6 Kvpios iv eKeivrj rf) rjfiipa, 6 8iKaios Kpinjs. 2 Tim. iv. 8. " Co- 
rona justitiae," Vulg. " Ci'own of justice," Rheims. " Crown of righte- 
ousness," all the other versions.] 

r 1 22 



T77s SiKaiai that day." And again, 2 Thess. L, " Rejoice in tribulation, which is a 
lualdJ' token of the righteous judgment of God', that you may be counted 
e<TTi. worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye suffer. For it is a righteous 

iTy^/p^J^i- thing with God, to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you ; 
'^'f^- and to vou that are troubled, rest with us, in the revelation of the Lord 

Non enim in- * , „ . , . tt i • -• /s ^^ /-i i • l • i , 

Justus est Jesus from heaven. And agam Hebrews vi. 10, God is not unrighteous 
^^"*' to forget your good work and labour," &c.^ These are very pregnant 

places to discover their false pui-pose in concealing the word "justice" in 
all their bibles. For if they will say, that "justice" is not an usual English 
word in this sense, and therefore they say " righteousness ;" yet, I trow, 
"just," and "unjust," are usual and well known. WTiy then would they 
not say at the least, in the places alleged, "God the just judge," "a 
token of the just judgment of God," " it is a just thing with God," 
" God is not unjust to forget," &c. ? Why is it not at the least in one of 
their English bibles, being so both in Greek and Latin ? 

Fi'LKE, 5. Fidke. Certain it is, that no Englishman knoweth the 
difference between "just" and "righteous," "unjust" and 
" unrighteous," saving that " righteousness" and " righteous*" 
are the more famihar Enghsh words. And that we mean no 
fraud between " justice" and " righteousness," to apply the 
one to faith, the other to works, read Rom. x. 4, 5, and 6'\ 
of the Geneva translation, where you shall see " the right- 
eousness of the law," and the " righteousness of faith." 
Read also against this impudent lie, in the same translation, 

P "EvSety/ia Tijs 8iKaias Kpiaeas tov Qeov, 2 Thess. i. 5. " Exem- 
plum justi judicii Dei," Vulg. "A token of the righteous judgment 
of God," all the versions, except the Rhemish, which has, " An example 
of the just judgment of God."] 

P ov yap abiKos 6 Qeos iniKadecrdai tov epyov vjjloiv, &c. Heb. vi. 10. 
"Non enim Lnjustus Deus," Vulg. "God is not unrighteous," &c., all 
the versions, except those of Wiclif and Rheims, which have "un- 

j-a u Yox Christ is the end of the law, to justify {eh biKaiocrvv-qv) 
all that believe. For Moses describeth the righteousness (jr)v biKatoa-vvqv) 
which cometh of the law, in these words, that the man which doth 
these things, shall live thereby. But the righteousness (SiKaioavvrj) 
which cometh of faith speaketh on this wise," &c., Rom. x. 4, 6, 6. 
Genevan testament, 15.57. "For Christ is the end of the law for righte- 
ousness unto every one that believeth. For Moses thus describeth the 
righteousness which is of the law, that the man which doeth these 
things, shall live thereby," Geneva bible, 1560. Upon which pas- 
sage is the following marginal note: " The end of the law is to justify 
them which observe it : therefore Christ having fulfilled it for us, is 
made our justice, sanctification," &c.] 


Luke i., " Zachary and Elizabeth were both just* :" cap. ii., 
" Simeon was just :" Matt, i., " Joseph a just man" ; and 
elsewhere oftentimes, and without any difference in the 
world from the word " righteous." AYlio ever heard a 
difference made between a " just judge" and a " righteous 
judge" ? This trifling is too shameful abusing of men's patience, 
that shall vouchsafe to read these blotted papers. 

Martin. Understand, gentle reader, and mark well, that if St Paul's Maktin, 6. 
words were truly translated thus, "A crown of justice is laid up for me, turcsm'ost 
which our Lord the just Judge will render unto me at that day," and fu'ufuation, 
so in the other places; it would infer that men are justly crowned ha ^^^^JJ^j^f*^^, 
heaven for their good works upon earth, and that it is God's "justice" f^"*^- 
so to do, and that he will do so hecause he is "a just judge," and 
because he will shew his "just judgment," and he will not forget so 
to do, because he is not unjust; as the ancient fathers, namely the 
Greek doctors, St Chrysostom, Theodoret, and (Ecumenius upon these ;^jf ^g g^j ^' 
places do interpret and expound. Insomuch that (Ecumenius'' saith ductus justo, 

. , . " " o iitique est 

thus upon the foresaid place to the Thessalonians, opa on, &c. : " See Deus juiU- 
here, that to suffer for Christ procureth the kingdom of heaven accord- terra. 
ing to just judgment, and not according to grace." Wliich lest the t^a-rdcLKai- 
adversary might take in the worse part, as though it were only God's ,-„im-, ,^„'^3- 
justice or just judgment, and not his favour or grace also, St Augustine x'^^'"'- 
excellently declareth how it is both the one and the other; to wit, 
his grace, and favour, and mercy, in making us by his grace to live and 
believe well, and so to be worthy of heaven ; his justice and just judg- 
ment, to render and repay for those works, which himself wrought in 
us, life everlasting. Which he expresseth thus: "How should he Aug. dep-a. 
render or repay as a just judge, unless he had given it as a merciful c. 6. 
father 1" Where St Augustine urgeth the words of " repaying" as due, 
and of being "a just judge" therefore. Both which the said translators 
corrupt; not only saying "righteous judge," for "just judge;" but that 
he will " give a crown," which is of a thing not due, for that wliich is 
in the Greek, " He will render or repay," which is of a thing due and diroSwcrei. 
deserved, and hath relation to works going before, for the which the 
crown is repaid. " He said not," saith Theophylact upon this place, " ' he 

[* "Both were just (dUaioi) before God," Geneva version, 1560. 
" Both were perfect befoi'e God," Geneva version, 1557, Luke i. 6. 
" Tliis man was just and feared God : (SUaios Ka\ (v\a[ii)s), Luke ii. 25, 
Geneva version, 1557, lofJO, Tyndale, 1534. "Just and godly," Cran- 
mer, 1539, Bishops' bible, 1584. "Just and devout," Authorised ver- 

^ opa 8e OTi TO vnep Xpiarov TTaa-)(eiv Kara dcKaioKpicriav napex^^ 
Trjv ^atriKfiav tcov ovpavcav, Kol ov Kara x^Jp'"- CEcumen. Comment. 
in 2 Epist. ad Thessal. Vol. ii. p. 189.] 


will give/ but, ' he will render or repay/ as a certain debt. For he 
being just, will define and limit the reward according to the labours. 
The crown therefore is due debt, because of the judge's justice." So 
saith he. 

FuLKE, 6. Fulhe. Wl^atsoever you may cavil upon the words 
"just" and "justice," you may do the same, with as great 
advantage, upon the words " righteous" and " righteous- 
ness." That God as a just judge rewardeth good works 
of them that are justified freely by his grace, by faith 
without works, with a crown of justice, it proveth not either 
justification by works, or the merit or worthiness of men's 
works ; but all dependeth upon the grace of God, who pro- 
miseth this reward of his mere mercy, and of the worthiness 
and merits of Christ, which is our justice ; whereby we 
being justified before God, our works also, which he hath 
given us, are rewarded of his justice, yet in respect of 
Clirist's merits, and not in respect of the wortliiness of the 
works. Again, God is not unmindfid of his promise to 
reward our works ; for then he should be unjust : he is just 
therefore to perform whatsoever he hath promised, though 
we notliing deserve it. Neither hath Chrysostom, or Theo- 
doret, any other meaning. That you cite out of CEcumenius, 
a late writer in comparison', is blasphemous against the 
grace of God ; neither is St Augustine, that lived five 
hundred years before him, a sufficient interpreter of his 

inPs. ixx-^ saying to excuse him. With Augustine we say, " God crown- 

and in Ps- cw. i/ o O i' ? 

[' CEcumenius, bishop of Tricca in Thessaly, in the tenth century, 
A^'l•ote a Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of St 
Paul, and the Catholic Epistles. But the remarks are chiefly taken 
from Chrysostom, Cyril, and other preceding writers.] 

P Hanc ergo gratiam commendat nobis Deus et in isto psalmo : 
intueamur ilium, et videamus an ita sit, an forte ego aliter suspicer. 
Etenim arbitror hunc eum habere affectum, et hoc omnibus prope suis 
syllabis resonare : id est, hoc nobis commendare, gratiam Dei gratuitam, 
quae nos liberat indignos, non propter nos, sed propter se ; ut etiamsi 
non hoc dicerem, neque hoc prselocutus essem, quiUbet mediocris cordis 
homo, attente audiens verba ejusdem psalmi, saperet hoc; et forte ipsis 
verbis, si aliud habebat in corde, mutaretur, et fieret quod hie sonat. 
Quid est hoc ? Ut tota spes nostra in Deo sit, nihilque de nobis tam- 
quam de nostris viribus prsesumamus; ne, nostrum facientes quod ab 
illo est, et quod accepimus amittamus. Augustini Enarrat. in Psal. Ixx. 
Opera, Vol. iv. p. 1027.] 

[•* Ergo coronat te, quia dona sua coronat, non merita tua. Plus 


eth his gifts, not our merits." And as he acknowleclgeth 
God's mercy, and also his justice, in rewarchng our works, 
so do we. Where d-rroSioaei is translated "" he will give," 
I confess it had been more proper and agreeable to the 
Greek to have said, " he will render," or " repay ;" which 
yet is wholly of mercy in respect of us or our deserving, 
but of justice in respect of his promises, and of Christ's 
merits, unto wliich is rendered and repayed that which he 
deserved for us. The croAvn therefore is due debt, because 
it is promised to us for Christ's sake, not because any works 
of ours are able to purchase it. 

Martin. Which speeches behig most true, as being the express words Martin,?. 
of holy scripture, yet we know how odiously the adversaries may and 
do misconstrue them to the ignorant, as though we challenged heaven 
by our own works, and as though we made God bound to us : which 
we do not, God forbid ! But because he hath prepared good works for 
us, as the apostle saith, to walk in them, and doth by his grace cause us Eph. ii. lo. 
to do them, and hath promised life everlasting for them, and telleth 
us in all his holy scriptures, that to do them is the way to heaven ; 
therefore not presuming upon our own works as our own, or as of our- 
selves, but upon the good works wrought through God's grace by us, 
his scely* instruments, we have great confidence, as the apostle speak- ^^^- *• 
eth, and are assured that tiiese works, proceeding of his grace, be so 
acceptable to him, that they are esteemed, and be, worthy and merito- 
rious of the kingdom of heaven. Agamst which truth let lis see further 
their heretical corruptions. 

Fulke. If you would abide by your first protestation, Fulke, 7. 
we should not need to contend much about this question. 
But after you have in the beginning magnified the grace 
and mercy of God, and abased your own merits, you come 
back again Avith a subtle compass, to establish your own 
free will, the worthiness of your works, and your merit of 

omnibus illis laboravi, ait apostolus : sed vide quid adjungit, Non ego 
autem, sed gratia Dei mecum. Et post labores omnes exspectat ipsam 
coronam, et dicit, Bonum agonem certavi, cursum consummavi, fidem 
servavi : de cetero superest mihi corona justitiae, quam reddet Dorainus 
in ilia die Justus judex. Quare? Quia agonem certavi. Quare? Quia 
cursum consummavi. Quare? Quia fidem servavi. Unde certasti? 
iinde fidem servasti ? Non ego autem, sed gratia Dei mecum. Ergo 
et quod coronaris, illius misericordia coronaris. Augustini Enan-at. in 
Psalm, cii. Opera, Vol. iv. pp. 1592, 1593. Edit. Bened. Paris. 1835.] 
[* Simple.] 


the kingdom of heaven. First, you say, God telleth us in 
all his holy scriptures, that "to do good works is the way to 
heaven." Indeed to fulfil the law, is to deserve heaven. But 
whosoever is guilty of sin, must seek another way than by 
good works to come to heaven, namely to Jesus Christ, who 
is the only way to heaven, the truth, and the life ; by whose 
blood when he is purged from his sin, and reconciled unto 
God, and the kingdom of heaven pm^chased for him, then 
he hath the way of good works appointed him to walk in 
toward the same. Secondly, you say, you " presume not 
upon your own works, as your own, or as of yourselves, but 
upon the good works wrought by God's grace, by you his 
seely instruments, you have great confidence." Thus while 
you would seem to fly from Pelagianism, you fall into flat 
Pharisaism. For you trust that you are righteous in your- 
selves, though not as of yourselves. Such was the Pharisee 
of whom Christ telleth the parable ; which, ascribing all his 
works to the grace of God, had confidence in them, that he 
was just before God by them. " God, I thank thee," saith 
the Pharisee. He acknowledgeth the grace of God, as 
author of all his works : yet against such as he was, Christ 
telleth that parable. And whereas you call the apostle, 
Heb. X., to witness of your error, you do him great wrong ; 
for he speaketh not of any confidence to be had upon good 
works, wrought by the grace of God by us ; but in the new 
covenant of remission of sins, by the sacrifice of Christ's 
death, by whom we have access to God, that we may be 
acceptable to him, not for any meritorious works wrought 
by us, but by the only oblation of his body once for all, 
by wliich " he hath made perfect for ever those that are 



Heretical Translation against Merits, or Meritorious Works, 
and the Reward for the same. 

Martin. When they translate Rom. viii. 18, thus, "1 am certainly IMautin, 1. 
persuaded, that the afflictions of this time are not worthy of the S'^- 1^77. 
glory which shall be shewed upon us' ;" do they not mean to signify to 
the reader, and must it not needs so sound in his ears, that the tribula- 
tions of this life, be they never so great, though suffered for Christ, yet 
do not merit nor deserve the heavenly glory ? But in the Greek it is far 
other\Wse. I will not stand upon their first words, " I am certainly \oyiYo- 
persuaded," which is a far greater asseveration than the apostle useth ; m«'-- "} 
and I marvel how they could so translate that Greek word, but that 
they were disposed not only to translate the apostle's words falsely 
against meritorious works, but also to avouch and aflSrm the same 
lustily, with much more vehemency of words than the apostle speaketh. 
Well, let us pardon them this fault, and examine the words following : ouk d^ia 
where the Greek saith not, as they translate with full consent in all '^P°^ '^'''' 
their English bibles, " The afflictions are not worthy of the glory," &c., aJ^^y. 
but thus, " The afflictions of this time are not equal, correspondent, or ^^^f "J!^ 
comparable to the glory to come ;" because the afflictions are short, the ^^ fyituram 
glory is eternal ; the afflictions small and few in comparison, the gloiy s. chrysost. 

upon this 

great and abundant above measure. place. 

Fulke. Although an inA'incible argument against merits Fulke, 1. 
and desert of good works may be drawn out of this text ; 
vet the meanino- of the translators is to shew no more 
than the apostle saith, that the heavenly glory is incompa- 
rably greater than all the tribulations of this life. And 
this the apostle speaketh, not doubtingly, as our English 

[' Bishops' bible, 1584.] 

r^ Aoyi^ofxaL yap on ovk a§ia to. nadij^aTa tov vvv Kutpov irpos Trjv jitX- 
Xovcrav 86^av dnoKoXvcpdrivat (Is iqp-as, Rom. viii. 18. " And I deem that 
the passions of this time," &c., Wiclif. " For I suppose that the afflic- 
tions of this life," Tyndale, 1534, Cranmer, 1539. " For I confirm that 
the afflictions of this life," Geneva testament, 1557. "For I count 
that the afflictions of this present time," Geneva bible, 1560. " For I 
think that the passions of this time are not condign to the glory to come," 
Rheims, 1582. " P'or I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are 
not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in 
us," Authorised version, 1611.] 


word " I suppose" doth signify, when a man may be deceived 
in his supposal ; but he avouch eth it constantly, as a thing, 
which being well considered, with the reasons thereof, he 
concludeth of it with certainty. And so doth Xoyii^onai 
signify in this place, and in divers other, by the judgment 
of better Grecians than Gregory Martin will be these seven 
years ; as Rom. iii. 28, where the apostle, having discussed the 
Controversy of justification by faith or works, concludeth, as 
of a Certain, Xoyi^dfxeOa ovv, "We determine therefore, that 
a msMn is justified by faith without the works of the law." 
Likewise, Rom. vi. 11, after he hath proved, that sanctification 
is necessary to all them that shall or have put on the justice 
of Christ, he saith with great asseveration unto the Romans, 
Xoy'iteaOe eai/roy?, " Make you full account therefore, that 
you are dead to sin ;" and not uncertainly think or suppose 
it so to be. Therefore tbr the translation of Xoyi^o/xai, 
in this place, Ave will accept no pardon of you ; it is better 
translated than your wit or learning serveth you to under- 
stand. Now let us come to the other words, a^ia ttjOos 
Tfiv fxeXKovaavho^av, "are not worthy of the glory," Where 
you say, it should be "not equal," "correspondent," or " com- 
parable," to the glory. Verily, those Words we use have none 
Other sense in this place, than the words which you supply us 
withal ; but our words do express the most usual significa- 
tion of the Greek word a^ia, even as your vulgar Latin 
doth, calling it in the same sense condignoi, which you in 
your own translation dare not render "equal," "correspondent," 
or "comparable," but "condign" ; lest following the sense, you 
might be accused to forsake the word : even so we think 
it best, where the usual signification of the word will bear 
the sense in our English, to retain the same, and not to 
change it. 

Martin, 2. Marti'n. This is the Greek phrase and the apostle's meaning, which 
we need not greatly to prove, because their own doctors, Calvin and 
Beza, do so intterpret it : and therefore wonder it were that the Geneva 
English bibles also should forsake their masters, and follow the error 
of the other English bibles, but that they thought the more voices the 
better. In the mean time, the people seeth no other translation, and 
thinketh it is the apostle's very words. But Beza himself telleth them 
the contrary, translating thus : Statuo minime esse paria qufe prcesenti 
tempore perpetinmr, futurce (jloricv nobis revelandtv: that is, " I am of this 


opinion, that the things which we suffer in this present time, are not 
equal to the glories that shall be revealed to us." And in his commen- 
tary thus : " St Paul's discourse and matter handled in this place declare, 
that he speaketh not of the value or price of the afflictions which we 
suffer for Christ ; but rather by comparing their quality and quantity 
with life everlasting, he gathereth that we shall be infinitely more happy 
with Christ, than we are miserable here. Therefore did he use the 
Greek word rightly and properly, which the grammarians say is spoken "£ia. 
of such things as, being poised or weighed, are found of one weight." 
Thus far Beza^ 

Fulke. We contend not, as it seemeth, at this time JPulke, 2. 
about the meaning of the place, but about the true translation 
of the words. If you can prove therefore, that the Greek 
word OHIO'S doth not signify " worthy," or that this English 
word "worthy" cannot express the meaning of the apostle in 
this text, your accusation is just ; but if you can prove neither 
of both, you multiply words, as your manner is, without 
matter, to no purpose but to weary the reader. And wisely 
you translate Beza's Latin word statuo, " I am of opinion,**^ 
which signifieth more truly, "I determine," or, as our transla- 
tion hath, " I am certainly persuaded," and not, " I am of an 
opinion," whereof there is no certain knowledge ; for an opinion 
may be false,' and is of uncertainties. 

Martin. If then a comparison only be signified, why do they not so Martin, 3. 
translate it in English, that it may be taken for a comparison in out 
English phrase ? For they know very well, tliat if a man should say 
in English, according as they translate, " Good works are not worthy 
of heaven ;" " this man is not worthy of my favour," " he is not worthy 
of such a living, of so great praises ;"' every Englishman understandeth 
it thus, that tliey " deserve not heaven," and that such a man " deserv- 
eth not this or that." Even so must the reader needs take it in this 
place, and they must needs have intended that he should so take it. 
For though the Greek phrase may signify a comparison, being so uttered, Prov. ui. [I5, 
yet not the English. And if it might, yet obscurely, and ambiguously : agioi/ ai>- 
and if it might, yet here they do falsely translate so, because here the '^''*' 
Greek phrase is otherwise, and therefore should otherwise be Englished. 
For it is not a^ta ttjs 86^1] s, which is as they translate, " worthy of the 
glory ;" but «'!'« T^pos t^v bo^av, which cannot be so translated. For 
if it might, then these Greek phrases were all one, and might be used 
indifferently. And then I must desire them to turn me this into Greek, 
" He is not worthy of thanks :" and if they turn it by the apostle's 
phrase in this place, ovk a^ios ia-ri rrpos ttjv x^ptra, to all Grecians they 

[^ Nov. Test. Bezse, p. 189, in Rom. viii. 18.] 


shall be ridiculous. And yet this is as well turned out of English into 
Greek, as they have turned the other out of Greek into English. 

FuLKK,3. Fulke. Verily I cannot see, nor any wise man else, 

I think, what this English word " worthiness" doth signify, 
but a comparison of equality in price, valour', goodness, excel- 
lency, or such like. And even in those Enghsh phrases that 
you bring for example, " good works are not worthy of hea- 
ven," the meaning is, there is not an equality of excellency in 
good works and heaven ; or, good works compared to heaven 
are not equal in value. And even so, " this man is not wor- 
thy of my favour ;" "the goodness of this man is not so great, 
as the goodness of my favour ;" and so of the rest. And 
where you say, " every Englishman understandeth it thus, that 
they deserve not heaven, and that such a man deserveth not 
this," &c. I grant they may of worthiness gather desert, in 
such as may deserve ; and so may they of the comparison of 
equality conclude desert in the hke case. For to deserve is, 
by doing to make himself equal in good or evil to that 
reward or punishment which is valued with such doing. 
Therefore whether you say "worthy," or "equal," it is all one. 
And in this text by either of both merit or desert is neces- 
sarily excluded. For if the heavenly glory be incomparably 
greater than the afflictions of this hfe, it followeth of necessity, 
that the afflictions of this hfe deserve not, that is, make not 
an equality of excellency with heavenly glory. But the 
Greek phrase, you say, is otherwise ; for a^ia is not joined 
with a genitive case, but with an accusative and a preposition. 
Indeed this latter construction of a^ios is not so usual, and 
doth more fully set forth the comparison ; but the same also 
is set forth by the genitive case, as you yourself cannot deny. 
Now om' English phrase would not bear that we should say, 
"worthy to the glory;" and therefore we said, "worthy of the 
glory." But if that were good, you say, the " Greek phrases 
were all one, and might be used indifferently." I see no great 
difference between the Greek phrases ; and yet it followeth 
not that they may be used indifferently. For unusual phrases 
are not to be used as indifferently as common phrases. And 
therefore your example, of turning English into Greek, is not 
all one with turning Greek into English. If I translate out 

[' Valour: value.] 


of Greek into English, I must observe the EngUsh phrase as 
near as I can ; and so, if I translate into Greek, must I have 
respect to the usual Greek phrase. And to speak of your 
ridiculous translation out of English into Greek ; I think he 
that should say a^ios xa'/O''^^^' ^°^ "worthy of thanks," should 
deserve no great commendation : but he that should say, 
a^to9 TTjOos Ti]v X"^P"' '^°^ /SacrtXetDs, for "worthy of the 
king's favour," though it be no usual phrase, I see not why he 
should be ridiculous. And if you should translate these 
words into English, l^epwv ovk a^io? ^i' tt^oos ttju fiacriXeiav, 
would you not, or might you not, translate it thus, " Nero 
was not worthy of the kingdom" ? Therefore we have not 
done amiss to translate " worthy of the glory." 

Martin, Marry, if they would express a comparison of equality or iMarun, 4. 
inequality between thing and thing, then this is the proper Greek phrase 
thereof, and much more proper for tliis purpose, than by a|toj and a 
genitive case. 'WTiich notwithstanding is often so used in scriptures by The Greek 
way of comparison, as Prov. iii., concerning the praise of wisdom: where nifieth a com- 
St Augustine, to express the comparison, readeth thus : Omne pretiosum ^'^y°"('„t,,i/ 
non est illi dignum : and St Hiei'ome, according to the Hebrew, thus : ovk a^wv 


Omnia quce desiderantur non valent huic comparari, or adcequari; and ""'''''* ^ ■ 

Eccles. xxvi. we have the very like speech proceeding of the said Greek 

word agios', Omnis ponderatio non est digna continentis animee. Which D"'!i2n 

the English bibles thus, " There is no weight to be compared imto a ^^ 

mind that can rule itself, or, with a continent mind." »_-,-»,„:^ 

Fulke. You cannot use the word a^io^ but it will in- Fulke, 4. 
elude a comparison, whether it be with a genitive case, as 
in the examples you bring, or with an accusative, as in this 
text of St Paul. And even so the English word, " worthy," 
doth comprehend an equahty in good or evil. Wherefore 
the sense is all one, whether you say in this text " equal," 
or " Avorthy," but that the usual signification of a^io^ is 
" worthy," as no man will deny that is not past all shame. 

Martin. And if a^i-os with a genitive case signify a comparison, JVIaetin, 5. 
and themselves so translate it in all their bibles, should not a^tos in the «^ia irpo^ 
apostle's phrase much more be so translated ? I appeal to their ovm '^''" "^"^' 
consciences. Again, if here in Ecclesiasticus they say not according to 
the Greek words, " There is no weight worthy of a continent mind," agio's ey- 
because they would by an English phrase express the comparison ; is ^f "Jj- "^ 
it not more than evident, that when they translate the apostle by the 
very same words, " worthy of the glory," &c. they know it caimot, and 
they mean it should not, signify a comparison ? I cannot sufficiently 


express, but only to the learned and skilful reader, their partial and 
heretical dealing. Briefly I say, they translate ovk a^ios (yKparois 
■^vxfjs, " Not to be compared with a continent mind," being in Greek, 
word for word, "not worthy of a continent mind;" and contrariwise 
they translate in St Paul, ovk a^ia npos ttjv fieXKovaav 86^av, "Not 
worthy of the glory to come," being in the Greek, " Not to be com- 
pared to the glory to come ;" according to the very like Latin phrase by 
dignus, Eccl. vi., Amico fideli nulla est comparatio, et non est digna pon- 
deratio auri et argenti contra honitatem fidei ; that is, according to their 
own translation^ " A faithful friend hath no peer : weight of gold and 
silver is not to be compared to the goodness of his faith." 

FuLKE,5. Fulke. If the English word "worthy" did not signify 

a comparison, as well as the Greek word a^io^, it were some- 
what that you say ; but seeing one signifieth as much as the 
other, there is no more savour in your disputation than in an 
co-g without salt. When we say there is no weight of gold 
to be compared " to a continent mind," it is all one as if we 
said, " worthy of a continent mind;" for we meant, to be com- 
pared in goodness, price, excellency, &c. And therefore you 
speak out of measure falsely and impudently, when you say, 
we mean not that the word " worthy" in this text of St Paul 
should signify a comparison, for it is not possible that it 
should signify otherwise. Doth not the Geneva note in the 
margin say, "or of like value" ? If you be so bUnd that you 
cannot see a comparison in the word " worthy," at the least 
shore up your eyes, and behold it in those words, " of like 
or equal value." For all comparison is either in quantity or 
quahty. And where you say that you cannot express your 
conceit, " but only to the learned," there is none so meanly 
learned, but they may well laugh at your foolish and un- 
learned trifling. 

Martin, 6. Martin. Now if they will say, though their translation of St Paul's 

How good words be not so exact and commodious, yet the sense and meaning is 

Hfe eveXst- all one ; (for if these present afflictions be not equal or comparable to 

o"n^ein°om^ the glory to come, then neither are they worthy of it, nor can de- 

reed'th^e*''" serve or merit it ;) let the christian reader mark the difference. First, 

other. tiieir Beza and Calvm telleth them, that the apostle speaketh of the 

one, and not of the other. Secondly, the passions and afflictions that 

Christ our Saviour suffered all his life, were not comparable to the 

eternal glory which he obtained thereby : yet did he thereby deserve 

and merit eternal glory, not only for himself, but for all the world ; 

yea, by the least affliction he suffered did he deserve all this :— unless 


you will deny also that he merited and deserved his glory, which your 
opinion a man might very well gather by some of your false translations, Heb. ii. i). 
but that you would think us too suspicious, which, perhaps, we will Testament 

■T . mi 11 1 p J i J • of the year 

examine hereafter. Thirdl}^, the present pleasure ot advoutry durmg issD.andBib- 
a man's life is not comparable to the eternal torments of hell fire ; 
and yet it doth merit and deserve the same. Fourthly, the apostle by 
making an incomparable difference of the glory to come with the afflic- 
tions of this time, doth, as St Chrysostom saith, exhort them the more irpoTpeirei 
vehemently and move them to sustain all things the more willingly : M^'i>"'""«- 
but if he said, as they translate, "The afflictions are not worthy of 
heaven, you are never the nearer heaven for them, only believe ;" this 
had not been to exhort them, but to discourage them. Fifthly, the 
apostle, when he will elsewhere encourage them to suffer, saith plainly, 
"Our tribulation which presently is for a moment and light, worketh 2 Cor. iv. 17 . 
above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory in us'." rexa't.^"" 

Fulke. We say our translation, both in word and sense, Fulke, 6. 
is the same in Enghsh that St Paul did write in Greek. As 
for the argument against " merit " or " desert," which doth 
follow thereof, we affirm that it is as necessarily gathered of 
the words " equal," or "comparable," or "correspondent," as 
of the word "worthy." But to overthrow this argument, you 
have five reasons. The first is of the authority of Beza and 
Calvin, which, you say, " telletli us, that the apostle speaketh 
of the one, and not of the other." To this I answer, that they 
both affirm the consequence against merits out of this text, 
although it be not the apostle's direct purpose to abase the 
merit of works by comparison of the excellency of the glory. 
To your second argument I answer, that though " the afflictions 
that ,Christ our Saviour suifered were not comparable" in 
respect of the length of time " with the eternal glory that he 
obtained thereby ;" yet in respect of the excellency of his 
person, and the perfection of his obedience, they were com- 
parable, and of equal value to deserve eternal glory, according 
to the justice of God, by which one man's disobedience was 
sufficient to eternal condemnation, Romans v. What the 
least of his afflictions, separated from all the rest, was in 
value, I have not learned out of the scripture : only I think, 

r' To yap TvapavTLKa i\a(ppov rijs SXi-^ecos rjpwv Kad' inreplBo\r)u 
eli VTTfpfioKrjv alatVLOv j3apos ^o^rjs Karepya^eraL rjj-uv, 2 Cor. iv. 17- 
Karepya^erat. " Operatur," Vulg. "Worketh," "Wiclif's, Rhemish, 
Authorised version. " Prepareth," Tyndale's, Cranmer's, Bishops' bible, 
" Causeth," Geneva Test. 1557.] 


he suffered nothing superfluously, nor less than was needful to 
answer the justice of God. Your other fond surmises I omit, 
until you express them. To your third argument I say, that 
one act of adultery is worthy of damnation, and deserveth 
eternal torment, not by comparison of the short pleasure with 
infinite pain, but because it is a sin committed against the 
majesty of the eternal God, and therefore is worthy of eternal 
punishment. For the sin is to be measured after the excel- 
lency of the person against whom it is committed. Therefore 
that word, wliich being spoken against a poor man is a light 
fault, as to say he is a knave, the same being spoken against 
a lord is an heinous offence and deserveth the pillory ; but 
being spoken against a king, is high treason, and is worthy 
of death. Seemg therefore the eternal majesty of God is 
contemned in every sin, that sin doth justly deserve eternal 
torments. Foiu'thly, it is true that the apostle doth exhort 
us cheerfully to abide the small and momentary afflictions of 
this hfe, in respect that they shall be rewarded with incom- 
parable glory. But hereof it foUoweth not, that the glory is 
deserved by short and small sufferings, but is given of the 
bountiful liberality of God to them that for his sake patiently 
suffer such small afflictions. Therefore, if it be an encourage- 
ment for a man to labour, to hear that he shall be paid his 
hire, as much as his work deserveth, it is a much greater 
encouragement for him to hear, that he shall receive a 
thousand times more than his labour deserveth. The words 
you add (" you are never the nearer heaven, only beheve ") 
are yours, and none of ours ; for we say with the apostle, 
" we must suffer with Christ, if we will reign with him ;" and 
the patient suffering of the faitlifid is nothing repugnant to the 
justification before God by faith only. To the last argument 
of the apostle's authority, I answer : our patient suffering 
worketh infinite weight of glory, not by the worthiness, 
merit, or desert of our suffering, but by the bountiful libe- 
rality of God, who hath promised so incomparable reward 
to small tribulation suffered for liis sake. Wherefore, all 
your fine reasons notwithstanding, our translation is sound 
and true. 

Martin, 7. Martin. See you not a comparison between short and eternal, light 
tribulation and exceeding weighty glory; and yet that one also "worketh" 


the other, that is, causeth, purchaseth, and deserveth the other? For, 

like as the little seed, being not comparable to the great tree, yet causeth 

it and bringeth it forth ; so our tribulations and good works, other- f^^pJf'^Q,.^ 

wise incomparable to eternal glory, by the virtue of God's grace woi-k- 2 Cor. v\i. 

ine: in us "worketh," "purchaseth," and "causeth" the said glory. For so themselves 

° J r J ,,,111 translate it, 

they know very well the Greek word importeth ; though here also they •■ causeth." 
translate it most falsely. Bib. an. 1577. v. 10, 11. ' 

Fulke. We see the comparison well, but we see not Fulke, 7. 
that "worketh" or "causeth" is all one with "purchaseth" 
and "deserveth." Your comparison of "seed," and "tribu- 
lation," is not like. For in the seed is the formal cause of 
the great tree : so is not the formal cause of eternal glory in 
our tribulation. But as if an emperor for one day's valiant 
service in war do give unto his son one of his kingdoms, we 
may truly say, that day's service wrought him this great 
reward, or caused him to be advanced to this kino-dom : but 
we cannot say truly, it purchased or deserved a kingdom ; 
for then every one that served as well as he deserved the 
like reward : so is the reward of eternal life, which is the 
gift of God, incomparably greater than our tribulation, not by 
the desert of the sufferer, but by liberality of the giver. That 
translation that useth the word of " preparing," is not so 
proper, according to the word ; but it diifereth not much in 
sense, shewing how those afflictions do work, or cause, namely, 
by preparing and making us conformable to the sufferings of 

Martin. Lastly, for most manifest evidence, that these present tri- Marux, 8. 
bulations and other good works are meritorious and wortliy of the joys 
to come, though not comparable to the same; you shall hear the holy 
doctors say both in one passage or sentence. St Cyprian thus : " O Ep. 5G. num. 
what manner of day shall come, my brethren, when our Lord shall rinn'im'ua. 
recount the merits of every one, and pay us the reward or stipend of 
faith and devotion?"^ Ep. Ivi. Here are "inerits" and "reward" for the 

[} O dies ille qualis et quantus adveniet, fratres dilectissimi, cum 
coeperit populum suum Dominus recensere, et divinae cognitionis ex- 
amine singulorum merita recognoscere, mittere in gehennam nocentes, 
et persecutores nostros flammse poenalis perpetuo ardore damnare, nobis 
vero mercedem fidei et devotionis exsolvere ! Quae erit gloria, et quanta 
laetitia, admitti, ut Deum videas ; honorari, ut cum Christo Domino Deo 
tuo salutis ac lucis tcternae gaudium capias ! Abraham, et Isaac, et 
Jacob, et Patriai'chas omnes, et Proplietas, et Apostolos, et Martyres 



same. It followeth in the said doctor : " What glory shall it be, and how 
great joy, to be admitted to see God, so to be honoured that thou 
receive the joy of eternal life with Christ thy Lord God, to receive 
there that which neither eye hath seen, nor ear hath heard, nor hath 
ascended into the heai"t of man ! for that we shall receive greater things 
than here either we do or suffer, the apostle pronounceth, saying, 
' The passions of this time are not condign or comparable to the glory 
to come.'" Here we see, that the "stipend" or "reward" of the merits 
aforesaid are incomparably greater than the said merits. 

Fur.KE, 8. Fulke. For lack of scriptures you fly to the doctors to 

find "merits ;" in whom nevertheless, being cathohc and sound 
doctors, you shall sooner find the word meritum than your 
meaning of it. The place of Cyprian I marvel why you 
geld, except it be to join the reward that he speaketh of with 
the word " merits ;" which he useth, either generally for 
works, as it is often used in the ancient writers ; or if he 
mean thereby "deserts," he speaketh but of examination only 
of all men's deserts, that he may give to the wicked that 
they have deserved, and to the godly that which he hath 
promised : therefore he calleth it the reward of their fixith and 
devotion. His words are these : " O dies ille qualis et 
quantus adveniet, fr aires dilectissimi, cum coeperit populum 
suum Dominus recensere, et divince cognitionis examine sin- 
gidorum meritum recognoscere, m^ittere in gehennam nocentes, 
et p)ersecutores nostras flammce poenalis perpetuo ardor e 
damnare, nobis vero mercedem fidei et devotionis exsolvere." 
" that day, what manner a one, and how great shall it come, 
my dearest beloved brethren, when the Lord shall b